Ethics

Toolkit

Compiled by
Deepshikha Sharma
for
KCCS 132: Ethics
SIAS, Krea University
 Metaethics
Study of the origin, nature, and
meaning of ethical concepts.
Wide ranging and covers topics
of semantics, knowledge,
metaphysics, psychology etc. of
moral theory and practice.
Concerned with
questions like: Does morality
exist independently of humans
or is it a social construct? Hence, is it
factual and objective, or something
relative? Why is someone moral? Is it
for altruistic reasons or personal
interests? Or it is for social
approval and conformity?Are
there different moral standards
for different genders?

Normative
Ethics
Concerns itself with arriving at
reasonable moral standards which
serve as frameworks for regulating
moral behaviour. Prescribes principles
to serve as a guide for shaping one's
conduct - whether that be through
following duties, calculating
consequences or
developing virtues
Consequentialism
Argues that a morally right
action produces more favourable
consequences, in comparison to any
other course of action. (IEP)
Ethics
Study of Morality;
Reflecting on whether the
moral standards, concerning the right and
wrong the good and bad, of a
group/individual
are reasonable Applied
Ethics
Devoted to the analyses of
controversial and polarising
moral problems that affect
personal lives and are situated
Virtue Ethics in the public sphere
Argues that ethics should
centre around being morally
good people Emphasises on the
role of character, importance of
the community, and draws the
attention to important aspects
of being human such as care
and concern. Includes Bioethics
Aristotelian Golden Mean and Environmental
Care Ethics Ethics
Business Ethics
AI Ethics
Non-Consequentialism Social Ethics
Media Ethics
Argues that the morality of an action

depends on factors other than consequences.
An egoist would argue for

maximising good consequences for It may be grounded in reason and a duty

oneself. A utilitarian would argue for to oneself (Kantian Categorical Imperative). Or it
maximising good consequences may be based on the will of God, manifested
for the
through Scriptural Commands or Natural
majority.
Inclinations (Divine Command Theory).
Or it may be in tandem with wisdom, compassion,
and generosity.
(Buddhist ethics), aiming at
enlightenment
According to Ethical Absolutism, only a single set of correct and valid moral
codes exist. It includes elements of Moral Universalism, which argues that the
same ethic pertains throughout the world. (However, not all universalists are
absolutists) Hence, actions for an absolutist are intrinsically moral as they follow
"objective" principles and are applicable everywhere, and are valid for everyone.

Criticism:
In reality, moral principles vary greatly among cultures, and societies.

According to Ethical Relativism, there is no absolute set of correct moral codes.

Rather, standards of morality differ as per one’s socio-cultural context. Hence,
actions for a relativist gain their moral worth from the customs, beliefs, and
practices of societies or cultures.

Criticism:
No standard to refer to in case of conflicts within society/culture
Implies conformity, not reflection
Despite differences, not necessary that no moral standard is correct
Even if practices differ, societies share moral values for survival

According to Ethical Pluralism, moral codes are diverse and cannot be reduced to
a single principle or objective standards. However, not all codes and practices are
equally reasonable - they are bound by rational constraints.

Criticism:
A different form of relativism, that stops one from
delivering relevant criticism, as justificatory reasons
also differ

Such positions give rise to meta-ethical

questions like: are moral codes
factual/objective - hence, absolutist? Or
are they social constructs conventions?
And normative questions like what values
does a society prioritise to shapetheir
practices around it?
 Fallacies in Moral Reasoning
Fallacies are errors in reasoning. The list given below is not exhaustive yet
tries to cover the common fallacies that occur in Ethical/Moral Reasoning:

Appeal to the People: Strongly suggesting that a proposition is correct

only on the grounds that everyone believes it. The "strongly" is important,
as what everyone believes is likely to be true. Such fallacious reasoning
occurs when there's an overestimation on the part of the agent that leads
one to not check the evidence or refer to credible testimonies. E.g.:
Everyone says Charity X is the best place to donate to. Hence, I shall
donate to Charity X.

Appeal to Authority: Believing that a proposition is correct only on the

grounds of an authority figure saying so. Most cases as such aren't
fallacious as what an expert or authority figure says is usually true.
However, it is fallacious when one listens to an individual who is not an
expert in the field, when authorities disagree on the subject, when the
reasoner misquotes the authority, when the authority cannot be trusted
etc. Eg: Climate Change isn't real! Our President said so.

Ad Hominem: Attacking the person, rather than the person's argument. Eg:
Why should I listen to her views on minority rights? She's a leftist!

Begging the question: Supporting you proposition with a variation of

proposition itself or answering the question while reiterating the
questions. Eg: Humans are on the top of the food chain and should eat
animals, as animals rank lower on the food chain and those who rank
higher are allowed to consume them.

Cherry-picking: When relevant information is inadvertently ignored, or not

acknowledged; Can lead to the fallacy of Suppressed evidence where one
excludes data that does not fit with one's conclusion. Eg: Ignoring facts
about filter bubbles and prescriptive algorithms when talking about the
democratisation of knowledge through the internet

Jumping to conclusions: Drawing a conclusion without taking the trouble

to acquire enough of the relevant evidence. Eg: Institute X passed the bill
for Policy of tackling Y, so things are getting better in cases of Y.

Slippery slope: Asserting that a first step will lead to a chain of negative
consequences. Eg: If we start censoring things on national television, we
will enter a fascist regime of cabals, with no freedom of speech.
 Is/Ought: Assuming that since something is one way, it ought to be as such
without clear evidence.. Eg: Humans are omnivorous. Hence, they ought to
eat meat.

Wishful Thinking: Claiming something to be true, without clear evidence, on

the mere hope of it being true. Eg: I don't care what all those studies say, I
believe that capital punishment deters criminals.

Some Fun
(hyperlinked)
Ethics Resources

THE MORAL SENSE TEST: Online test that "helps us determine the
principles we use to decide that one action is right and another "

Morality Play: A game that asks one to make a judgment about what is the
morally right thing to do from 19 scenarios

Moral Machine: Gathers human perspective on moral decisions made by

machine intelligence

PhilosophyTube: Video Essays that cover a wide range of topics in Applied

Ethics such as the Ethics of Self-Driving Cars, Data, Abortion, Climate
Change, Health Care, Antinatalism, Capital Punishment etc.
A Brief History of Ethical Theories
© Existential Comics
 Normative Ethics

Consequentialist theories

Ethical Egoism

The morally right action is that which produces more good and less bad
consequences for oneself.

Hence, a moral agent ought to act in a way that promotes their self-interests. It
is usually supported by theories of psychological egoism according to which a
person can act only for their self-interests. Many go forth to add insights from
genetics (Blackburn) about egoist programming and kin-selection
(Lichtenberg). And some try to rationalise it saying any action for the greater
good is for reciprocal favours/protection and a guilt-free conscience.

While many egoists are hedonists, not all subscribe to hedonism as per which
good consequences result in pleasure and bad consequences result in pain.
Some egoists regard consequences that produce knowledge/ power/ self-
realisation as good.

Criticism:
No way to resolve what is morally right in case of conflicts
Allows inconsistent moral counsel
Undermines the moral point of view where a person should be unbiased
without favouring the interests of an individual/ a group
Impossible to disprove (Lichtenberg). Hence, fails the falsifiability criteria,
like astrology (Popper), which is the capacity of a hypothesis to be proven
wrong, for it to be considered valid.
 Utilitarianism

The morally right action is that which results in more good and less bad
consequences for everyone (or the majority), in comparison to any other
course of action. In short, one ought to act in a way that produces the best
consequences for the majority.

Classical Utilitarianism, formulated by Bentham & Mill, equates good with

happiness and pleasure, which are said to have intrinsic worth. Bentham even
formulated the hedonistic calculus to measure the degree of pleasure an
action can possibly produce. Mill defending the theory against Bentham's
critics, introduced a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, say
pleasures of the intellect against sensory pleasures, saying those acquainted
with both chose higher goods.

Ideal Utilitarianism (proposed by modern theorists like Moore & Rashdall)

says that besides pleasure/happiness, things like power, knowledge, beauty
have intrinsic worth.

Criticism:
Places heavy burden of information gathering on the agent - cannot
accurately predetermine the consequences of choosing one rule over the
other
Does not take seriously the separateness of persons
It is usually classified into two types:

Act Utilitarianism: The morally right action is that which maximises the good in that
specific situation for a greater number of people.

Criticism:
Is it ethical to sacrifice one for maximising utility of the majority?
Too demanding to ask of people to consider strangers and loved ones in the
same breath

Rule Utilitarianism: The morally right action is that which follows moral rules that
lead to the greater good. For instance, a rule would state that sacrificing innocent
individuals for maximising the good is unethical.

Criticism:
Leads to "rule worship" - irrational deference to rules with no utilitarian basis
(Smart)
While allowing exceptions to the rules (when required) may help produce more
pleasure and less pain, it eventually slumps into act utilitarianism

In which Peter Singer investigates a basement flood

© Existential Comics
 Non-Consequentialist Theories

Divine Command Theory

The morally right action is that which follows the will or the commands of God.
2 types:

Scriptural Divine Command Theories: A morally right action is the will of God
which manifests as scriptural commandments. Such commands are universally
binding and eternally true, irrespective of individual beliefs or social customs.

Criticism:
With conflicting scriptures, difficult to know which one expresses the true
divine will
Can’t explain why God commands something - Circular reasoning to justify
the legitimacy of a script through the assertion that the script is legitimate
How do these commands help a non-believer?

Natural Law Ethics: The morally right action is that which aligns with one’s
human nature, as it is God who created these inclinations.

Criticism:
Ambiguity in which kind of and how many goods to incline towards
Conflicts in deciding between fundamental goods.
Action of choice may sometimes lead to multiple results which may not all
be positive, or sometimes destroy a good (Doctrine of Double Effect). If
necessary, how can one keep themself from destroying the other good?
No specified moral obligations to follow natural tendencies -
logically possible to be required to curb such
inclinations as they may not always
produce good results.

"Religion is not the foundation of

ethics, but its showcase or its
symbolic expression."
- Blackburn

 The Categorical Imperative

The morally right action is that which arises from a good will.

The goodwill is the autonomous choice to the do the right thing for its own
sake. According to Kant, the goodwill is the only thing which is good in itself.
Intelligence, beauty, power or pleasure can be used to bring about good or
bad things, depending on how one uses them. However, this is not the case
with the goodwill which is good without qualifications. Hence, when one acts
from a good motive, out of sense of duty and reverence to moral rules, one is
acting from a good will.

Such actions are grounded in reason and making the unethical unreasonable.
They are duties one ought to carry out regardless of circumstances. These are
rules one sets for themselves - the categorical imperative. Can formulated as:
"Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a
universal law of nature." (One ought to act only when their actions seem
reasonable enough for everyone to follow)
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always
at the same time as an end.” (Never treat another person as a mere
instrument. While using the other as a means, one ought to have their
consent in doing so and remember that they are creatures with ends
themselves)

Let's say one breaks a promise. As per the Categorical Imperative, the would
grant everyone the license to break their word which would be unreasonable
as it would lead to complete erosion of trust. Additionally, breaking one's
word would treat the other as a mere means, as it would dismiss their
autonomy and dignity as a rational human being - further allowing everyone to
do the same!

Criticism:
No way to resolve conflicts within duties
Duty-bound ethics are rigid and always condemn certain actions (like
lying). However, should one tell the mad axeman where their children are
sleeping?


Calvin and Hobbes

© Bill Watterson

 Buddhist Ethics
The morally right action is that which is volitional, as it determines one’s
destiny due to karmic (action-accrued) forces, and is in tandem with wisdom.

The Buddhist ethical Ideal is a self-reliant person who ceases to do evil, learns
to do good, and yearns to purify their mind. Such actions should lead to the
possibility of nirvāna (enlightenment), after the realisation of The Four Noble
Truths :

There is suffering
Suffering stems from desire
Cessation of desires release one from suffering
Desires can be put an end to through the Eightfold Path:

Right Understanding
Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Conduct
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration

Besides Vows of Individual Liberation which apply mostly to monks and nuns,
the five percepts is said to one of the most important systems of moral
discipline which includes:
Harm no living being
Do not take what is not given
Do not misuse the senses
Refrain from wrong speech
Refrain from consuming food/drinks that cloud one’s mind

For lessons in promoting good, Buddhism encourages “wholesome states”,

such as:
Dāna: The virtue of generosity. Unlike philanthropy, it is the gradual
development of one's willingness to give in times of need.
Mettā: The virtue of empathetic concern. Also called “loving kindness"
Transference of credit: By virtue of which good actions contribute to the
well-being of the entire humanity and not just oneself.

 Buddha, Vol 510

© Amar Chitra Katha
 Virtue Ethics
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
The morally good human being is a virtuous one, that is one who takes
balanced actions while operating with reason.

Aristotle combines humankind's highest function (reasoning) with their

highest purpose (human flourishing/happiness) to build on his ideas about
ethics. If one applies reason to acquire arête (virtue, also translated as
excellence) constantly, they can achieve eudaemonia (happiness, also
translated as human flourishing). In short, most people strive towards
happiness which can be done through living a virtuous life.

Virtues are the mean between the two vices of excess and deficiency on the
scale of traits. For instance, courage is a virtue in between the extremes of
cowardice and rashness. And when trying to embody such traits, one should
always be reasonable about the situation. For instance, jumping into a pool to
save a drowning cat isn't courageous when one doesn't know how to swim -
the virtuous thing to do would be alerting the lifeguard. Hence, virtue is
acquired through repeated action and with temperance, being able to act with
the right intent and calculate the consequences. Aristotle calls this Practical
Wisdom.

Such virtuous actions shaping one’s moral character which in turn influences
one’s moral actions. However, it is a theory of practice, requiring constant
engagement and activity to be called virtuous or ethical.

Criticism:
Offers no clear guidance on what one should do
Is culturally specific - what may be considered a virtue in one culture, may
be called a vice in another one

© Joshang
 Care Ethics

The morally good human being is a caring one.

It was formulated by Carol Gillligan in response to Kohlberg’s assertion that

women are morally underdeveloped. Kohlberg's theory traced moral
development through 3 stages: (i) preconventional level where the focus is on
oneself (ii) conventional level where the focus shifts to social acceptance (iii)
postconventional level where the focus lands on universal moral principles. He
argued that most women seem to be stuck at the less advanced, second level
than men.

Pointing out the bias in the all-male sample, Gilligan argued that women’s
morality develops differently centering around interpersonal relationships and
care rather than abstract principles and rules. Ethics, for women, includes
responsibility and compassion towards. As per Gilligan, it develops through
the sequence of (i) caring for oneself (ii) devotion to caring for the other (iii) a
balance between caring for oneself and the other.

Noddings even went to the extent of calling the "feminine ethic" superior to
all other kinds. And while care ethicists have tempered their views to agree
that even men can approach morality in terms of care, they emphasise the
instinctual tendency of women to do so.

Criticism:
Reinforces sexist stereotypes of women as mere “carers”
No way to resolve moral issues involving individuals one doesn’t have a
personal relationship with.

take care!
 Applied Ethics

The theories listed above identify certain markers such as autonomy,

consequences, happiness etc. one needs to take into consideration when
making moral decisions. However, none of them can cover all facets of
complex moral issues which constitute Applied Ethics. Rather, each theory
sheds light on different considerations to keep in mind when analysing moral
issues situated in a context.

Fieser:

The following [normative] principles are the ones most commonly

appealed to in applied ethical discussions:
Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces
beneficial consequences for the individual in question.
Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces
beneficial consequences for society.
Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests
when they cannot do so themselves.
Principle of harm: do not harm others.
Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her
actions or physical body.
Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair
compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
Rights: acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free
expression, and safety.

 Ethical Terminology

In Applied Ethics, the terminology changes as per the focus area. For
instance, in Bioethics some key terms are personhood, autonomy ; in
Environmental ethics anthropocentrism or sustainability; in AI Ethics
privacy, consent, transparency etc. Given below is a generic list which can
be useful in most focus areas:

Moral responsibility: Capacity to take rational moral decisions with a sense of

duty, for the agent to be held accountable for their actions. As per
determinists, people cannot be held responsible due to the rigid causality
evident in the physical world where actions are caused due to previous
events.
For libertarians humans are exempt from causal chains, and can choose to
act freely. Hence, people should be held responsible for their moral decisions.
According to compatibilism humans cannot go against their individual
characters yet are free enough to choose in the absence of external
restraints. Such a reconciliation of predetermined dispositions and intrinsic
freedom, preserves the argument for moral responsibility, to an extent.

Ethical excusability: An agent is excused from moral responsibility when:

They are ignorant of circumstances or consequences of the act (only when
not deliberately used); were forced to act in a certain way (internal and
external constraints);the circumstances were beyond their control (such as
illness, accidents, unexpected events); and they lacked the ability or
opportunity to act otherwise.

Diffusion of responsibility: occurs when people who need to make a decision

wait for someone else to act instead. The more people involved, the more
likely it is that each person will do nothing, believing someone else from the
group will probably respond

Ethical dilemma: A situation in which two or more potential actions appear to

be equally justifiable from an ethical point of view, i.e. one must choose
between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods.
Informed consent: is the process of making a free and informed decision
(such as to participate in research). Individuals who provide informed consent
must be legally competent and have enough decision-making capacity to
consent to research. When a subject does not have the capacity to do so yet
replies affirmatively, it is called assent. (This ties in with the ethical terms of
autonomy, dignity)

Ideal observer: someone who is impartial/unbiased, posseses full knowledge

of the situation, and can imaginatively identify with the person who is
involved in the situation

Moral turpitude: is a legal concept in which the conduct contrary to

community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.

Moral Muteness: occurs when people witness unethical behavior and choose
not to say anything. It can also occur when people communicate in ways that
obscure their moral beliefs and commitments.

Role Morality: Role morality is the notion that people sometimes fail to live up
to their own ethical standards because they see themselves as playing a
certain role that excuses them from those standards.

Moral Myopia: refers to the inability to see ethical issues clearly.

7 step method for Ethical Decision Making
- Michael Davis
State the problem.
For example, "there's something about this decision that makes me
uncomfortable" or "do I have a conflict of interest?".

Check the facts.

Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation,
while others change radically.
For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, other
practical constraints

Identify relevant factors (internal and external).

Develop a list of options.

Be imaginative, try to avoid "dilemma"; not "yes" or" no" but whom to
go to, what to say. [Note: it isn't always possible to avoid ethical
dilemmas]

Test the options. Use some of the following tests:

harm test: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?
publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option published in the
newspaper?
defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this option before a
congressional committee or committee of peers?
reversibility test: Would I still think this option was a good choice if I
were adversely affected by it?
colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I describe my
problem and suggest this option as my solution?
professional test: What might my profession's governing body for
ethics say about this option?
organization test: What does my company's ethics officer or legal
counsel say about this?

Make a choice based on steps 1-5.

Review steps 1-6. How can you reduce the likelihood that you will need to
make a similar decision again?
Are there any cautions you can take as an individual (and announce
your policy on question, job change, etc.)?
Is there any way to have more support next time?
Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest
policy change at next departmental meeting)?
References:

Blackburn, S. (2001). In Ethics: A Very Short Introduction (pp. 16, 33), Oxford
University Press.

Davis, M. (1999). 7 step method for Ethical Decision Making. In Ethics and the
University (pp. 166–167), Routledge.

Fieser, J. (n.d.). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

https://iep.utm.edu/ethics/.

Lichtenberg, J. (2010, October 19). Is pure altruism possible? The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/is-pure-
altruism-possible/.

Velasquez, M. G. (2010). Ethics. In Philosophy: A text with readings (pp. 429–499).

essay, Cengage Learning.

(Please find other sources hyperlinked within the toolkit)