ETHICS
WEEK 2: MORALITY (1) does not have its origin in social agreements;
Definition of Morality and Ethics
What is Morality?
Before investing yourself in the study of an academic
subject, it would be useful to first have some idea of
what you are getting yourself into. One way—sometimes
the best—to gain such an understanding is by
considering a definition. When you open your
trigonometry text or chemistry handbook, you’ll likely be
given, very early on, a definition of the area you are
about to study. So, as your teacher, I would seem to
have a duty now to present you with a definition of
morality.
Even if we want to we just simply can’t. There is no
widely agreed-on definition of morality. The absence of a
definition does not leave us entirely in the dark, however.
(After all, no one has yet been able to offer informative
definitions of literature, or life, or art, and yet we know a
great deal about those things.) Indeed, we can get a
good sense of our subject matter by doing these four
things:
 being clear about the difference between
conventional and critical morality;
 distinguishing the different branches of moral
philosophy and their central questions;
 identifying starting points for moral thinking; and
 contrasting morality with other normative
systems, including religious ones.
Conventional and Critical Morality
Conventional Morality
Suppose you take sociology or an anthropology course,
and you get to a unit on the morality of the cultures
you’ve been studying. You’ll likely focus on the patterns
of behavior to be found in the cultures, their accepted
ideas about right and wrong, and the sorts of character
traits that these cultures find admirable. These are the
elements of what we can call conventional morality—the
system of widely accepted rules and principles, created
by and for human beings, that members of a culture or
society use to govern their own lives and to assess the
actions and the motivations of others.
Conventional morality can differ from society to society.
The conventional morality of Saudi Arabia forbids
women from publicly contradicting their husbands or
brothers, while Denmark’s conventional morality allows
this. People in the United States would think it immoral to
leave a restaurant without tipping a good waiter or
bartender, while such behavior in many other societies is
perfectly OK.
Critical Morality
When we talk about morality in this course, we will be
referring to moral standards that are not rooted in
widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of
conventional morality and can be used to critically
evaluate its merits.
It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is all
there is. But this would be a very surprising discovery.
Most of us assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a
moral view is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be
wrong on this point, but until we have a chance to
consider the matter in detail, I think it best to assume
that conventional morality can sometimes be mistaken. If
so, then there may be some independent, critical
morality that
(2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or
popular prejudices; and
(3) can serve as the true standard for determining
when conventional morality has got it right and
when it has fallen into error.
That is the morality whose nature we are going to
explore in this course.
The Branches of Moral Philosophy
There are three core areas of moral philosophy:
1. Value theory
 What is the good life?
 What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
 How do we improve our lot in life?
 What is happiness, and is it the very same
thing as well-being?
2. Normative ethics
 What are our fundamental moral duties?
 What makes right actions right?
 Which character traits count as virtues,
which as vices, and why?
 Who should our role models be?
 Do the ends always justify the means, or are
there certain types of action that should
never be done under any circumstances?
3. Metaethics
 What is the status of moral claims and
advice?
 Can ethical theories, moral principles, or
specific moral verdicts be true? If so,
what makes them true?
 Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
 Do we always have a good reason to do
our moral duty?
Moral Starting Points (part 1)
One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing
where to begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that
there are any proper starting points for ethical reflection.
They believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of
rationalizing our biases and gut feelings. This outlook
encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse,
supports an attitude that no moral views are any better
than others. While this sort of skepticism might be true,
we shouldn’t regard it as the default view of ethics. We
should accept it only as a last resort.
In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly plausible
ethical assumptions, claims that can get us started in our
moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you
up to the idea that we are not just spinning our wheels
when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide
us when thinking about how to live. Here are some of
them:
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from
moral criticism. The law does not have the final
word on what is right and wrong. Neither does
tradition. Actions that are legal, or customary,
are sometimes morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some
mistaken ethical views, and no human being is
wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good
thing. Friendships add value to your life. You are
better off when there are people you care deeply
about, and who care deeply about you.
ETHICS
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible.
Morality can demand only so much of us. Moral
standards that are impossible to meet are
illegitimate. Morality must respect our limitations.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility than
adults. Moral responsibility assumes an ability
on our part to understand options, to make
decisions in an informed way, and to let our
decisions guide our behavior. The fewer of these
abilities you have, the less blameworthy you are
for any harm you might cause.
6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any
moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant is
deeply suspect. It is important that we get what
we deserve, and that we are treated fairly.
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification. The default position in ethics is this:
do no harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable
to harm others, but there must be an excellent
reason for doing so or else the harmful behavior
is unjustified.
8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who
are alike in all relevant respects should get
similar treatment. When this fails to happen—
when racist or sexist policies are enacted, for
instance—then something has gone wrong.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration.
How well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the
only thing of moral importance. Morality
sometimes calls on us to set aside our own
interests for the sake of others.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional
pain is bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to
cause such extreme suffering, but doing so
requires a very powerful justification.
11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can
get away with lots of things that the rest of us
can’t. That doesn’t justify what they do. That a
person can escape punishment is one thing—
whether his actions are morally acceptable is
another.
12. Free and informed requests prevent rights
violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one
twisting your arm, you ask someone to do
something for you, and she does it, then your
rights have not been violated— even if you end
up hurt as a result.
13. There are a number of points to make about
these claims.
14. First, this short list isn’t meant to be exhaustive.
It could be made much longer.
15. Second, we are not claiming that the items on
this list are beyond criticism. We are only saying
that each one is very plausible. Hard thinking
might weaken our confidence in some cases.
The point, though, is that without such scrutiny, it
is perfectly reasonable to begin our moral
thinking with the items on this list.
16. Third, many of these claims require
interpretation in order to apply them in a
satisfying way. When we say, for instance, that
equals ought to be treated equally, we leave all
of the interesting questions open. (What makes
people equals? Can we treat people equally
without treating them in precisely the same way?
And so on.)
17. A morality that celebrates genocide, torture,
treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is,
depending on how you look at it, either no
morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any
morality worth the name will place some
importance on justice, fairness, kindness, and
reasonableness.
[NOTES]
 Ethics – sharpens our reasoning ability
What is morality?
 What other people consider good actions are
bad actions to you, vice versa
 Morality is the distinction between right or wrong,
good or bad behavior
 Morality varies from one person’s perspective to
another as long as you’re happy with what
you’re doing
 Debate between the mind and feeling
 Purpose in life
 Looking after your own happiness
 Particular system of values and conduct
 Set of personal or social standards for good and
bad behavior or character
 No widely argued on definition of morality
 One’s own personal sense of right/wrong; own
discernment
Ethics
 Ethics and morality are generally used
interchangeably
 Other ethical practices acceptable in architecture
but not in other courses
 Ethos means character in Greek
 Mores means customs in Latin
 Ethics refers to the right action
 Morality is the practice of rightness or
wrongness
 Morality is prescriptive, it tells you what to do
 Morality is the practice of ethics
 Morality – moral (goodness), -ity
 Morality – manner, character
 “We are discussing no small matter, but how we
ought to live.” -Socrates
 Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is
and what it requires of us.
 1980s – atomic bomb
 GMO – genetically-modified organisms
 Ethics – code of values
WEEK 3: MORALITY, RELIGION, AND OTHER
NORMATIVE SYSTEMS
Other Normative Systems
We can also better understand morality by contrasting its
principles with those of other normative systems. Each of
these represents a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.
There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our focus
to four of the most important of them: those that govern
the law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
Law
ETHICS
The fact that a law tells us to do something does not
settle the question of whether morality gives its stamp of
approval.
Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not
illegal. And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism of a
dictator) are not immoral. Certainly, many laws require
what morality requires and forbid what morality forbids.
But the fit is hardly perfect, and that shows that morality
is something different from the law. That a legislature
passed a bill is not enough to show that the bill is morally
acceptable.
Etiquette
We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to
standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to
the left of a plate, but it isn’t immoral to set them on the
right. Good manners are not the same thing as morally
good conduct. Morality sometimes requires us not to be
polite or gracious, as when someone threatens your
children or happily tells you a racist joke. So the
standards of etiquette can depart from those of morality.
Self-interest
The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-
interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten
ahead in life by betraying others, lying about their past,
breaking the rules that others are following. It’s an
unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one: you
sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting
immorally. And those who behave virtuously are
sometimes punished, rather than rewarded, for it.
Whistleblowers who reveal a company’s or a
government official’s corruption are often attacked for
their efforts sued to the point of bankruptcy, and targeted
for their courageous behavior. Though the relation
between self-interest and morality is contested, it is a
plausible starting point to assume that morality can
sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-being, and
that we can sometimes improve our lot in life by acting
unethically.
Tradition
Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a
practice has been around a long time does not
automatically make it moral. Morality sometimes requires
a break with the past, as it did when people called for the
abolition of slavery or for allowing women to vote. And
some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be
morally excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a
foolproof test of its morality.
Morality and Religion
The Presumed Connection between Morality and
Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable:
People commonly believe that morality can be
understood only in the context of religion. Thus, the
clergy are assumed to be authorities on morality.
When viewed from a non-religious perspective, the
universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid
of value and purpose.
The Divine Command Theory
The basic idea is that God decides what is right and
wrong. Actions that God commands are morally
required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and
all other actions are permissible or merely morally
neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features.
 It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter
of personal feeling or social custom. Whether
something is right or wrong is perfectly objective:
It is right if God commands it and wrong if God
forbids it.
 The Divine Command Theory explains why any
of us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t
we just look out for ourselves? If immorality is
the violation of God’s commandments, then
there is an easy answer: On the day of final
reckoning, you will be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with the theory.
 Atheists would not accept it, because they do
not believe that God exists.
 But there are difficulties even for believers. One
can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right
because the gods command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right? This is a
question of whether God makes the moral truths
true or whether he merely recognizes that
they’re true.
First, we might say that right conduct is right because
God commands it. But this idea encounters several
difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles.
The second option has a different drawback.
 In taking it, we abandon the theological
conception of right and wrong. When we say that
God commands us to be truthful because
truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard
that is independent of God’s will. The rightness
exists prior to God’s command and is the reason
for the command.
God and Morality
Part 1 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship
between morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is
morality the same thing as the commands of God? Is
there no morality if there is no God? Ultimately, Stephen
will argue that morality and God's commands are
distinct, even if there is a God and she commands moral
things. However, in this first video, Steve considers why
you might like the view that morality just is God's
commands.
Part 2 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship
between morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is
morality the same thing as the commands of God? Is
there no morality if there is no God? Stephen thinks the
answer to both these questions is 'no'. He argues that, if
you believe God exists and that we should follow his
commands *for certain reasons*, then you should *not*
think that morality just is whatever God commands.
[PPT]
ETHICS
MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEMS
Law
 The system of rules which a particular country or
community recognizes as regulating the actions
of its members and which it may enforce by the
imposition of penalties.
 The fact that a law tells us to do something does
not settle the question of whether morality gives
its stamp of approval.
 Edmund Burke – Morality is more important
than laws, because law depends on morality
 Immanuel Kant – in law, a man is guilty when
he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is
guilty if he only thinks of doing so.
Etiquette
 The customary code of polite behavior in society
or among members of a particular profession or
group.
 The set of conventional rules of personal
behaviour in polite society, usually in the form of
an ethical code that delineates the expected and
accepted social behaviors that accord with the
conventions and norms observed by a society, a
social class, or a social group. 
Self-Interest
 It refers to a focus on the needs or desires of
one's self. Most times, actions that display self-
interest are often performed without conscious
knowing. A number of philosophical,
psychological, and economic theories examine
the role of self-interest in motivating human
action.
 The act of considering the advantage to yourself
when making decisions, and deciding to do what
is best for you.
Tradition
 A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down
within a group or society with symbolic meaning
or special significance with origins in the past.
 The handing down of information, beliefs, or
customs from one generation to another. 2: a
belief or custom handed down from one
generation to another.  Egoism.
 The transmission of customs or beliefs from
generation to generation, or the fact of being
passed on in this way.
The Divine Command Theory
Morality and Religion
 H.L. Mencken – Morality is doing right, no
matter what you are told. Religion is doing what
you are told, no matter what is right.
The basic idea is that God decides what is right and
wrong.
Actions that God commands are morally required;
actions that God forbids are morally wrong; and all other
actions are permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features.
 It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter
of personal feeling or social custom. Whether
something is right or wrong is perfectly objective:
It is right if God commands it and wrong if God
forbids it.
 The Divine Command Theory explains why any
of us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t
we just look out for ourselves? If immorality is
the violation of God’s commandments, then
there is an easy answer: On the day of final
reckoning, you will be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems with the theory.
 Atheists would not accept it, because they do
not believe that God exists.
 But there are difficulties even for believers. One
can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right
because the gods command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right? This is a
question whether God makes the moral truths
true or whether he merely recognizes that
they’re true.
WEEK 4: CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND ETHICAL
EGOISM
SKEPTICISM IN MORALITY
 Ayn Rand – The achievement of his own
happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.
Ethical Egoism
 It claims that each person ought to pursue his or
her own self-interest exclusively. This is the
morality of selfishness.
 It holds that our only duty is to do what is best
for ourselves. Other people matter only insofar
as they can benefit us.
 People ought to be self-interested and that our
neighbors ought not to give to charity. Ethical
Egoism makes a claim about morality, or about
the way things should be.
Psychological Egoism
Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts that each
person does in fact pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively.
It makes a claim about human nature, or about the way
things are.
Two arguments are often given for Psychological
1. The Argument That We Always Do What We
Want to Do.
2. The Argument That We Always Do What Makes
Us Feel Good.
Cultural Relativism
The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of their
dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that—
the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral
pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the
dead. The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated
by great distances, and their customs turned out to be
very different from ours. The men often had more than
one wife, and they would share their wives with guests,
lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality.
Moreover, within a community, a dominant male might
demand—and get—regular sexual access to other men’s
wives. The women, however, were free to break these
arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and
taking up with new partners—free, that is, so long as
their former husbands chose not to make too much
trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a
ETHICS
volatile practice that bore little resemblance to our
custom.
 Ruth Benedict – Morality differs in every
society, and is a convenient term for socially
approved habits.
 Different Cultures Have Different Moral
Codes. Therefore, there are no universal moral
truths, the customs of different societies are all
that exist.
The following claims have all been made by cultural
relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes;
that a certain action is right, then that action is
right, at least within that society.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used
to judge one society’s code as better than
another’s. There are no
3. moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no
special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant of them.
6. The moral code of a society determines what is
right within that society; that is, if the moral code
of a society says it is.
The Cultural Differences Argument
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
3. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
What Follows from Cultural Relativism
1. We could no longer say that the customs of
other societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own
society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism
First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about
the danger of assuming that all of our practices are
based on some absolute rational standard. They are not.
Some of our customs are merely conventional—merely
peculiar to our society—and it is easy to lose sight of that
fact. Cultural Relativism begins with the insight that
many of our practices are like this—they are only cultural
products.
The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind.
As we grow up, we develop strong feelings about things:
We learn to see some types of behavior as acceptable,
and other types as outrageous.
Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for this kind of
dogmatism. Realizing this can help broaden our minds.
We can see that our feelings are not necessarily
perceptions of the truth— they may be due to cultural
conditioning and nothing more.
Many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are
really only cultural products.
Ethical Relativism
 It is the view that ethical or moral values and
beliefs are relative to the various individuals or
societies that hold them. Thus, according to the
ethical or moral relativists, there is no objective
right and wrong.
WEEK 5: MORAL REASONING AND THE MINIMUM
CONCEPTION OF MORALITY
Moral Reasoning in Ethical Issues
Reason and Impartiality
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and
second, morality requires the impartial consideration of
each individual’s interests.
Moral Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to
assume that we just know what the truth is, without even
having to consider arguments on the other side.
Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings,
no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may
be irrational; they may be nothing but the by-products of
prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our
feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This
is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is
always the thing best supported by the arguments. Of
course, not every reason that may be advanced is a
good reason. There are bad arguments as well as good
ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in
discerning the difference.
The first thing is to get one’s facts straight. The facts
exist independently of our wishes, and responsible moral
thinking begins when we try to see things as they are.
Next, we can bring moral principles into play. In our three
examples, a number of principles were involved: that we
should not “use” people; that we should not kill one
person to save another; that we should do what will
benefit the people affected by our actions; that every life
is sacred; and that it is wrong to discriminate against the
handicapped. Most moral arguments consist of principles
being applied to particular cases, and so we must ask
whether the principles are justified and whether they are
being applied correctly.
The rote application of routine methods is never a
satisfactory substitute for critical thinking, in any area.
Morality is no exception.
The Requirement of Impartiality
Almost every important moral theory includes the idea of
impartiality. This is the idea that each individual’s
interests are equally important; no one should get
special treatment. At the same time, impartiality requires
that we do not treat the members of particular groups as
inferior, and thus it condemns forms of discrimination like
sexism and racism.
The Minimum Conception of Morality
We may now state the minimum conception: Morality is,
at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by
reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons
for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of
each individual affected by one’s action.
This paints a picture of what it means to be a
conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral
agent is someone who is concerned impartially with the
interests of everyone affected by what he or she does;
who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications;
who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing
them to make sure they are justified; who will “listen to
reason” even when it means revising prior convictions;
and who, finally, is willing toact on these deliberations.
ETHICS

As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts

this “minimum.” This picture of the conscientious moral
agent has been disputed in various ways. However,
theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This
is why most moral theories embrace the minimum
conception, in one form or another.