Ethics
The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores) from
which the adjective moral is derived is equivalent to ethos.
Etymologically, ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior
that is done by the human being in general or a society in
particular.
Ethics, generally speaking is about matters such as the good
thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should
avoid; the right ways in w/c we could or should act and the
wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations
that we are. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about
determining the grounds for the values w/ particular and
special significance to human life.
What is Ethics?
 Ethics from the latin word mos or moris which
means ‘morality’
 Ethics from the Greek word ethos which means
customs.
 is the branch of philosophy that studies free human
acts from the point of view of their moral value
(their goodness and badness) in relations to mans
ultimate end.
 Ethics is also termed as moral philosophy it
involves systematizing, defending and
recommending concepts of right and wrong
behavior.
Science
 Science - discipline/ subject (tool or principle)
 Science - knowledge/systematic (organized
knowledge)
 Study of all things In ther immediate cause (unang
nakikita or nasesense) in the light of reason and
experiment.
Philosophy (the love of wisdom)
 Philo – love
 Sofia/Sophia – wisdom
 Phusis – Nature
 Study of all things in their ultimate cause (root or
pinanggalingan the totality or the whole of
something) in the light of reason alone.
Theology
 Theo – God
 Logos – study
 Study of all things in their ultimate cause in the
light of reason and faith.
Ethics as science
 It is the systematic study of human actions from the
point of view of their rightness and wrongness as a
means for the achievement of man's ultimate
happiness.
 Ethics is a science of human conduct. By human
conduct we mean only such human activity as is
deliberate and free.
 Ethics is a practical science.
What is the material and formal object of ethics?
Material object in science: (Pag-uusapan)
 It is the WHAT you study.
 The matter/ thing/direct object you actually study
 The material object is the free human acts which
influence and form the way of being a person.
Formal object of any science: (paano pag-aaralan)
 It is the angle/perspective from which you study the
material object
 The formal object of ethics is the moral value of the
acts (their level of goodness or badness)
Branches of Ethics
Normative Ethics
 The largest branch, it deals with how individuals
can figure out the correct moral action that they
should take. Philosophers such as Socrates and
John Stuart Mill are included in this branch of
ethics.
Meta-Ethics
 This branch seeks to understand the nature of
ethical properties and judgments such as if truth
values can be found and the theory behind moral
principals.
Applied Ethics
 This is the study of applying theories from
philosophers regarding ethics in everyday life. For
example, this area of ethics asks questions such as
"Is it right to have an abortion?" and "Should you
turn in your friend at your workplace for taking
home office supplies?"
Moral Ethics
 This branch questions how individuals develop
their morality, why certain aspects of morality
differ between cultures and why certain aspects of
morality are generally universal.
Descriptive Ethics
 This branch is more scientific in its approach and
focuses on how human beings actually operate in
the real world, rather than attempt to theorize
about how they should operate.
Knowing how to best resolve difficult moral and ethical
dilemmas is never easy especially when any choice violates
the societal and ethical standards by which we have been
taught to govern our lives.
What makes you Man as man?
 Material part (nasesense, nahahawakan, nakikita)-
-- Human body
 Immaterial part( hindi nasesense or nakikita
nahahawakan) --- soul (so called source of life)
Types of Soul
in every type of soul there is so called power faculty
 (Mababa) Vegetative soul (material) - plants - grow,
reproductions, nutrition
 Sentient soul (material) - animals - they have the
faculties of vegetative soul, senses, movements,
instinct
 (Pinakamataas) Rational soul - human- vegetative
and sentient soul, intellect, will
Actions
 Human acts - voluntary, deliberate and free
 Acts of man - involuntary, instinct (in life and
death situation it is called survival instinct)
Kohlberg's Theory on Moral Development
Adolescent Psychology
Biography
 Lawrence Kohlberg born in 1927
 Grew up in Bronxville, New York
 Died on January 17, 1987 at the age of 59
 Kohlberg became a professor of education and
social psychology at
Harvard in 1968
 His book on moral development is used by teachers
around to promote moral reasoning
- Dilemma
Choosing the lesser evil (laging may masamang
mangyayari kahit anong piliin)
Three levels on Moral Developmet
You cannot move forward without finishing the first level
PRE-CONVENTIONAL - Before, 0-9 years old
(pinaiiral instinct)
In this stage;
kids learn a fear of punishment/obedience

 self-interest
 usually occurs in early childhood development
(More on consequences)
Stage 1: Punishment - Obedience Orientation
 Earliest stage of moral development
 Common in young children. They see rules as fixed
and absolute
 Morality is external.
 At this stage, children see rules as fixed and
absolute.
 Obeying the rules is important because it is a
means to avoid punishment.
Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation Or Self
Interest (individualism and exchange or reward)
 At this stage of moral development, children
account for individual points of view and judge
actions based on how they serve individual needs
 In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best
course of action was the choice that best-serves
Heinz's needs.
 Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral
development, but only if it serves one's own
interests.
CONVENTIONAL – Adolescents
conformity based on the beliefs of common people
(sumusunod sa dikta ng society kasi maraming gumagawa)
In this stage;
 teens learn to conform to others
 rules/laws are upheld
 usually occurs around middle school
Stage 3: Interpersonal Concordance Orientation (more
on self-image, self-interest, more on pleasing)
 Often referred to as the “good boy or good girl”
orientation.
 At this stage children who are by now usually
entering their teens, see morality as more than
simple deals.
 Stage of moral development is focused on living up
to social expectations and roles (of the family and
community). There is an emphasis on conformity,
being nice, and behave in good ways.
 Good behavior means having good motives and
interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust,
and concern for others.
Stage 4: Authority And Social-Order Maintaining
Orientation
 People begin to consider society as a whole when
making judgement
 Law and order
 Focus on maintaining law and order and
obeying laws
 Heinz's motives
 Consequences of breaking the law
Morality and fairness

 Stage 1 and stage 4 are giving the same response.
Similarity is they both agree that breaking the law
is wrong.
 Differences is for stage 1 the child can't explain
why it is wrong, while stage 4 the adults are able to
deliberate.
 Education.
 Follow rules and guidelines.
 It is compulsory for all school-age students
to attend school.
 Respect property of others.
 Wear appropriate uniform, appropriate shoes
to be worn
POST-CONVENTIONAL - adulthood After
In this stage;
 young adults develop their own ideas on important
issues
 alternatives are considered
 ideas are based on principles
 usually occurs around the college years
Stage 5: Social-Contract Legalistic Orientation
 At this stage, people begin to account for the
differing values, opinions and beliefs of other
people.
 Rules of law are important for maintaining a
society, but member of the society should agree
upon these standards.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles Orientation
 Based upon universal ethical principles and abstract
reasoning
 Based on respect for universal principle and the
demands of individual conscience.
 Takes an idealized look at how people might
coordinate their interests
 At this stage, people follow these internalized
principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws
and rules.
 Define the principles by which agreement will be
most just.
 If the children are to reorganize their thinking, they
must be more active. Principle and conscience.
 More on rules and ethics
Criticisms
Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior?
 Kohlberg's Theory is concerned with moral
thinking, but there is a big difference between
knowing what we ought to do versus our actual
action
Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should
consider?
 Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's Theory of
moral development overemphasizes the concept as
justice when making moral choices. Factors such as
comparison, caring, and other interpersonal
feelings may play an important part in moral
reasoning.
Does Kohlberg's Theory overemphasize Western
philosophy?
 Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights
while collectivist cultures stress the importance of
society and community. Eastern cultures may have
different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's Theory
does not account for.
AD D ITIO NAL
MO RALS AN D ETH IC S
This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates
such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so
on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the
use of the word “not” when applied to the words “moral” or
“ethical” as this can be ambiguous. One might say that
cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not
belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one
might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is
that the act of lying would be an unethical act.
Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals”
may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that
people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it
is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is
referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving
properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we
also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral
reasoning”, w/c suggest a more rational aspect. The term
“ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of
thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledge as an intellectual
discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and
unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as
ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard
to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a
given field, we have the term “professional ethics”
Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction
between the terms “moral” and “ethics” and they may have
good reasons for doing so, but there is no consensus as to
how to make that distinction. Ordinary conversation present
as much less rigid distinction between these terms, and in
this book, we will lean in that direction as we do not need to
occupy ourselves here with the question how different
thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this
course, we will be using the terms “ethical” and “moral”
(likewise, “ethics” and “morality”) interchangeably.
L A W, R E L I G I O N , C U L T U R E
LAW - It is supposed the law is one’s guide to ethical
behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to
obey the laws of the land as stated in country’s criminal and
civil codes. The term positive law refers to the different
rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an
authority figure that require compliance.
RELIGION - Does Morality Depend on Religion? by
James Rachels. (Chapter 4 of Rachels, The Elements of
Morality 6th ed)
“The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any
particular moment”. Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative
(1947)
“I respect deities. I do not rely upon them.” Musashi
Miyamoto, at Ichijohi Temple (CA. 1608)
1. The Presumed Connection between Morality and
Religion
In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued
Judge Roy Moore of Gadsden, Alabama, for displaying the
Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Such a display, it
said, violates the separation of church and state. The ACLU
may not have liked Moore, but Alabama voters did. I 2000,
Moore successfully campaigned to become chief Justice of
the Alabama Supreme Court, running on the premise to
“restore the moral foundation of law.” Thus the “Ten
Commandments Judge became the most powerful jurist in
the state of Alabama.
Moore was not through making his point, however. In the
wee hours of July 31, 2001, he had a granite monument to
the ten Commandments installed in the Alabama state
judicial building. This monument weighed over five
thousand pounds, and was anyone entering the building
could not miss it. Moore was sued again, but the people
were behind him: 77% of Americans thought that he should
be allowed to display his monument. Yet the law did not
agree. When Moore disobeyed a court order to remove it,
the Alabama Court of the Judiciary fired him, saying that he
had placed himself above the law. Moore, however, believed
that he was putting God above the law.
Few people, at least in the United States, would find this
remarkable. Among western democracies, the U.S. is an
unusually religious country. Nine out of ten Americans say
they believe in a personal God; in Denmark and Sweden, the
figure is only one in five. It is not unusual for priests and
ministers to be treated as moral experts. Most hospitals, for
example, have ethics committees, and these committees
usually include three types of members: healthcare
professionals to advise about technical matters, lawyers to
handle legal issues, and religious representatives to address
the moral questions. When newspapers want comments
about the ethical dimensions of a story, they call upon the
clergy, and the clergy are happy to oblige. Priests and
ministers are assumed to be wise counselors who will give
sound moral advice when it is needed.
Why are clergymen regarded this way? The reason is not
that they have proven to be better or wiser than other people
- as a group, they seem to be neither better nor worse than
the rest of us. There is a deeper reason why they are
regarded as having special moral insight. In popular thinking,
morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly
believe that morality can be understood only in the context
of religion. So because the clergymen are the spokesmen for
religion, it is assumed that they must be spokesmen for
morality as well.
It is not hard to see why people think this. When viewed
from a nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to be a
cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose. In his
essay, A Free Man’s Worship, written in 1902, Bertrand
Russell expressed what he called the scientific view of the
world:
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of
the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his
hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the
outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no
heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an
individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the
ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday
brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the
vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of
Man’s achievement must inevitable be buried beneath the
debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite
beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy
which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the
scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of
unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be
safely built.
From a religious perspective, however, things look very
different. Judaism and Christianity teach that the world was
created by a loving, all-powerful God to provide a home for
us. We, in turn, were created in his image, to be his children.
Thus the world is not devoid of meaning and purpose. It is,
instead, the arena in which God’s plans and purposes are
realized. What could be more natural, then, than to think that
morality is a part of the religious view of the world, whereas
the atheist’s world has no place for values?
2. The Divine Command Theory
In the major theistic traditions, including Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, God is conceived as a lawgiver who
has laid down rules that we are to obey. He does not compel
us to obey them. We were created as free agents, so we may
choose to accept or to reject his commandments. But if we
are to live as we should live, we must follow God’s laws.
This conception has been elaborated by some theologians
into a theory about the nature of right and wrong known as
the Divine Command Theory. Essentially, this theory says
that morally right means commanded by God and morally
wrong means forbidden by God.
This theory has a number of attractive features. It
immediately solves the old problem about 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, wrong if
God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command Theory
suggests an answer to the perennial question of why anyone
should bother with morality. Why not forget about ethics
and just look out for oneself? If immorality is the violation
of God’s commandments, there is an easy answer: On the
day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems for the theory, Of
course, atheists would not accept it, because thy do no
believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for
believers. The main problem was first noted by Plato, the
Greek Philosopher who lived 400 years before the birth of
Jesus.
Plato’s writings were in the form of dialogues, usually
between Socrates and one or more interlocutors. In one of
these dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a discussion
concerning whether right can be defined as that which the
gods command. Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct
right because the gods command it, or do the gods command
it because it is right? This is one of the most famous
questions in the history of philosophy. The British
philosopher Antony Flew suggests that one good test of a
person’s aptitude for philosophy is to discover whether he
can grasp its force and point.
The point is that if we accept the theological conception of
right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates
question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are two
things we might mean, and both lead to trouble.
First, we might mean that right conduct is right because
God commands it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16,
God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason
we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart
from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor
bad. It is God’s command that makes truthfulness right.
But this leads to trouble, for it represents God’s commands
as arbitrary. It means that God could have given different
commands just as easily. He could have commanded us to
be liars, and then lying, not truthfulness, would be right.
(You may be tempted to reply: But God would never
command us to lie. But why not? If he did endorse lying,
God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because his
command would make it right.) Remember that on this view,
honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore,
he could have had no more reason to command it than its
opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command
is arbitrary.
Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the
goodness of God is reduced to nonsense. It is important to
religious believers that God is not only all-powerful and all-
knowing, but the he is also good; yet if we accept the idea
that good and bad are defined by reference to God’s will,
this notion is deprived of any meaning. What could it mean
to say that God’s commands are good? If X is good means X
is commanded by God then God’s commands are good
would mean only God’s commands are commanded by God,
an empty truism. In 1686, Leibniz observed in his Discourse
on Metaphysics:
So in saying that things are not good by any rule of
goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that
one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all
his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he
would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?
Thus, if we choose the first of Socrates two options, we
seem to be stuck with consequences that even the most
religious people would find unacceptable.
Unfortunately, however, this second option leads to a
different problem, which is equally troublesome. In taking
this option, we have abandoned the theological conception
of right and wrong - when we say that God commands us to
be truthful because truthfulness is right, we are
acknowledging a standard of right and wrong that is
independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to and
independent of God’s command, and it is the reason for the
command. Thus, if we want to know why we should be
truthful, the reply Because God commands it does not really
tell us, for we may still ask But why does God command it?
and the answer to that question will provide the underlying
reason why truthfulness is a good thing.
All this may be summarized in the following argument:
1. Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then
either (a) the right actions are right because he commands
them or (b) he commands them because they are right.
2. If we take option (a), the God’s commands are, from a
moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of
the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.
3. If we take option (b), then we will have acknowledged a
standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s
will. We will have, in effect, given up the theological
conception of right and wrong.
4. Therefore, we must either regard God’s commands as
arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God,
or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is
independent of his will, and give up the theological
conception of right and wrong.
5. From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to
regard God’s commands as arbitrary or to give up the
doctrine of the goodness of God.
6. Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a
standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s
will must be accepted.
Many religious people believe that they must accept a
theological conception of right and wrong because it would
be impious no to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they
believe in God, they should say that right and wrong are to
be defined in terms of his will. But this argument suggests
otherwise: It suggests that, on the contrary, the Divine
Command Theory itself leads to impious results, so that a
devout person should not accept it. And in fact, some of the
greatest theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274), rejected the theory for just this reason. Thinkers such
as Aquinas connect morality with religion in a different way.
3. Religion and moral issues
Some religious people will find the preceding discussion
unsatisfying. It will seem too abstract to have any bearing on
their actual moral lives. For them, the connection between
morality and religion is an immediate, practical matter that
centers on particular moral issues. It doesn’t matter whether
right and wrong are defined in terms of God’s will or
whether moral laws are laws of nature: Whatever the merits
of such theories, there are still the moral teachings of one’s
religion about particular issues. The teachings of the
Scriptures and the church are regarded as authoritative,
determining the moral positions one must take.
Cultural Relativism - holds that the norms of a culture
reign supreme within the bounds of the culture itself.
How is culture defined?
What if someone told you their culture was the internet?
Would that make sense to you? Culture is the beliefs,
behaviors, objects, and other characteristics shared by
groups of people. Given this, someone could very well say
that they are influenced by internet culture, rather than an
ethnicity or a society! Culture could be based on shared
ethnicity, gender, customs, values, or even objects. Can you
think of any cultural objects? Some cultures place
significant value in things such as ceremonial artifacts,
jewelry, or even clothing. For example, Christmas trees can
be considered ceremonial or cultural objects. They are
representative in both Western religious and commercial
holiday culture.
In addition, culture can also demonstrate the way a group
thinks, their practices, or behavioral patterns, or their views
of the world. For example, in some countries like China, it is
acceptable to stare at others in public, or to stand very close
to others in public spaces. In South Africa, if you board a
nearly empty bus or enter a nearly empty movie theater, it is
regarded as polite to sit next to the only person there. On the
other hand, in a recent study of Greyhound bus trips in the
US, a researcher found that the greatest unspoken rule of
bus-taking is that if other seats are available, one should
never sit next to another person. Numerous passengers
expressed that “it makes you look weird”. These are all
examples of cultural norms that people in one society may
be used to. Norms that you are used to are neither right nor
wrong, just different. Picture walking into a nearly empty
movie theater when visiting another country, and not sitting
next to the only person in the theater. Another person walks
up and tells you off for being rude. You, not used to these
norms, feel confused, and anxious. This disorientation you
feel is an example of culture shock.
Cartoon showing two people in an empty movie theater. One
person is saying "you're a jerk" to the person who sat far
away from him.
What is cultural relativism?
Have you ever seen or eaten food from another country,
such as dried squid or fried crickets and think of it as weird
and gross? This is an example of ethnocentrism! That means
you use your own culture as the center and evaluate other
cultures based on it. You are judging, or making
assumptions about the food of other countries based on your
own norms, values, or beliefs. Thinking “dried squid is
smelly” or “people shouldn’t eat insects” are examples
of ethnocentrism in societies where people may not eat dried
squid or insects.
Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep
fried crickets. The man who is being offered the crickets
says "um, I think I'll pass."
Is ethnocentrism bad or good? On the one hand,
ethnocentrism can lead to negative judgments of the
behaviors of groups or societies. It can also lead to
discrimination against people who are different. For
example, in many countries, religious minorities (religions
that are not the dominant religion) often face discrimination.
But on the other hand, ethnocentrism can create loyalty
among the same social group or people in the same society.
For example, during the World Cup or Olympics, you may
tend to root for your own country and believe that the
players or teams representing your country are much better.
National pride is also part of ethnocentrism.
To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are
different to yours, we can use the cultural
relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging
a culture to our own standards of what is right or wrong,
strange or normal. Instead, we should try to understand
cultural practices of other groups in its own cultural context.
For example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are
disgusting! ” one should instead ask, “Why do some cultures
eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or
grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous
Oaxaca regional cuisine and have been eaten for thousands
of years as a healthy food source!
Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep
fried crickets. The man who is being offered the crickets
asks to know more about them.
Some people worry that the concept of culture can also be
abused and misinterpreted. If one culture behaves one way,
does that mean all cultures can behave that way as well? For
example, many countries and international organizations
oppose the act of whaling (the fishing of whales) for
environmental reasons. These environmental organizations
say that there are not many whales left and such fishing
practices should be stopped. However, other countries argue
that whaling is a cultural practice that has been around for
thousands of years. Because it may be part of a country’s
oceanic culture, this country may say that such a cultural
practice should not be opposed based on cultural differences,
say, by an inland country that does not understand. Who gets
to define what a moral cultural behavior is? Is whaling
immoral? Two different cultures may have very different
answers, as we saw in the above example. Another more
extreme instance would be female genital cutting in some
parts of the world. Locally, it is argued that the practice has
cultural roots, but such a practice has raised concerns among
many international human rights organizations.
Anthropologists say that when we think about different
cultures and societies, we should think about their customs
in a way that helps us make sense of how their cultural
practices fits with their overall cultural context. For example,
having several wives perhaps makes economic sense among
herders who move around frequently. Through such an
understanding, polygamy makes cultural sense.
SENSES OF THE SELF
SUBJECTIVISM
- The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that
the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of
all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with
the situation and is burdened with the need to make a
decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to
the more radical claim that the individual is the sole
determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong.
ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:
The basic thought of Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that
our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing
more. On this view, there is no such thing as “objective”
right and wrong.
Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths
out there.
There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is
wrong' can't be objectively true
 Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and teach
that moral statements describe how the speaker feels
about a particular ethical issue.
Moral statements are just factual statements about the
attitude the speaker holds on a particular issue
 So if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is telling you
that I disapprove of telling lies
Some forms of subjectivism generalise this idea to come up
with:
 Moral statements are just factual statements about the
attitude normal human beings hold on a particular issue
And this may ultimately lead us to this conclusion about
moral truths:
 Moral judgements are dependent on the feelings and
attitudes of the persons who think about such things
Good points of subjectivism
Reflects the subjective elements of morality
 It reflects the close relationship between morality and
people's feelings and opinions - indeed it can cope with
 the contradictory moral views we often find ourselves
wrestling with
Reflects the evaluative elements of moral statements
 Moral statements in everyday life make judgements
("lying is wrong"), factual statements ("cats have fur")
don't
Shows that moral judgements communicate dis/approval
 It reflects the communication of approval and
disapproval that seems to go along with the everyday
making of moral statements
May clarify what people are arguing about
 Subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the
rightness or wrongness of some issue to see that the
real dispute is not about objective truth but about their
own preferences
Reflects the persuasive intentions behind ethical discussions
 Subjectivism may also enable people engaging in
moral argument to realise that they are not arguing
about objective truths but trying to persuade their
opponent to adopt their point of view
I disapprove: but surely ethics is about more than feelings.
Bad points of subjectivism
The problem with subjectivism is that it seems to imply that
moral statements are less significant than most people think
they are - this may of course be true without rendering moral
statements insignificant.
"If I approve of something, it must be good"
 Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements
give information only about what we feel about moral
issues.
 If the simplest form of subjectivism is true then when a
person who genuinely approves of telling lies says
"telling lies is good" that moral statement is unarguably
true. It would only be untrue if the speaker didn't
approve of telling lies.
 So under this theory it seems that all the speaker has to
do to prove that lying is good is to show lots of
evidence that they do indeed approve of lying - perhaps
that they tell lots of lies and feel good about it, indeed
are surprised if anyone criticizes them for being a liar,
and that they often praise other people for telling lies.
Most people would find this way of approaching ethics

somewhat unhelpful, and wouldn't think it reflected the
way in which most people talk about ethical issues.
Moral statements seem more than statements about feelings
 By and large if a person says something is wrong we
usually get the message that they disapprove of that
something, but most of us probably think that the other
person is doing more than just telling us about their
feelings.
How can we blame people if moral truths are always
subjective?
 If moral statements have no objective truth, then how
can we blame people for behaving in a way that 'is
wrong', i.e. if "murder is wrong" has no objective truth,
then how can we justify punishing people for murder?
 One answer is that we can justify punishment for
murder on the basis of the objective truth that most
normal people in society disapprove of murder. If we
do this, we should not pretend that our justification is
based on anything other than the majority view.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our

action are always already motivated by self
interest.” This theory that describes the underlying
dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive
theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular
way. Instead, it points out that there is already an
underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has
its desires and interest, and all our actions are geared
toward satisfying these interests.
Ethical egoism
Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it
does not suppose all our actions are already inevitably self-
serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should
make our own ends, our own interest, as the single
overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to
others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us.
Ethical egoism is the view that people ought to pursue their
own self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote
anyone else’s interests. It is thus a normative or prescriptive
theory: it is concerned with how people ought to behave. In
this respect, ethical egoism is quite different from
psychological egoism, the theory that all our actions are
ultimately self-interested. Psychological egoism is a purely
descriptive theory that purports to describe a basic fact about
human nature.
Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism
Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the best way to
promote the general good. This argument was made famous
by Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his poem "The Fable
of the Bees" and by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his
pioneering work on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."
In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when individuals
single-mindedly pursue “the gratification of their own vain
and insatiable desires” they unintentionally, as if “led by an
invisible hand,” benefit society as a whole. This happy result
comes about because people generally are the best judges of
what is in their own interest, and they are much more
motivated to work hard to benefit themselves than to
achieve any other goal.
An obvious objection to this argument, though, is that ​ it
doesn’t really support ethical egoism. It assumes that what
really matters is the well-being of society as a whole, the
general good. It then claims that the best way to achieve this
end is for everyone to look out for themselves. But if it
could be proved that this attitude did not, in fact, promote
the general good, then those who advance this argument
would presumably stop advocating egoism.
Prisoner's Dilemma
Another objection is that what the argument states is not
always true. Consider the prisoner’s dilemma, for instance.
This is a hypothetical situation described in game theory.
You and a comrade, (call him X) are being held in prison.
You are both asked to confess. The terms of the deal you are
offered are as follows:
 If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six months and
he gets 10 years.
 If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six months and
you get 10 years.
If you both confess, you both get five years.

If neither of you confesses, you both get two years.

Regardless of what X does, the best thing for you to do is
confess. Because if he doesn’t confess, you’ll get a light
sentence; and if he does confess, you’ll at least avoid getting
extra prison time. But the same reasoning holds for X as
well. According to ethical egoism, you should both pursue
your rational self-interest. But then the outcome is not the
best one possible. You both get five years, whereas if both
of you had put your self-interest on hold, you’d each only
get two years.
The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in your best
interest to pursue your own self-interest without concern for
others. Sacrificing your own interests for the good of others
denies the fundamental value of your own life to yourself.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism
This seems to be the sort of argument put forward by Ayn
Rand, the leading exponent of “objectivism” and the author
of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Her complaint
is that the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, which includes—
or has fed into—modern liberalism and socialism, pushes an
ethic of altruism. Altruism means putting the interests of
others before your own.
This is something people are routinely praised for doing,
encouraged to do, and in some circumstances even required
to do, such as when you pay taxes to support the needy.
According to Rand, no one has any right to expect or
demand that I make any sacrifices for the sake of anyone
other than myself.
Russian-born American author and philosopher Ayn Rand,
smiles and stands outdoors with her arms folded, in front of
the Grand Central building, midtown Manhattan, New York
City.
A problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that
there is generally a conflict between pursuing your own
interests and helping others. In fact, though, most people
would say that these two goals are not necessarily opposed
at all. Much of the time they complement one another.
For instance, one student may help a housemate with her
homework, which is altruistic. But that student also has an
interest in enjoying good relations with her housemates. She
may not help everyone in all circumstances, but she will
help if the sacrifice involved is not too great. Most people
behave like this, seeking a balance between egoism and
altruism.
More Objections to Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral philosophy. This
is because it goes against certain basic assumptions that
most people have regarding what ethics involves. Two
objections seem especially powerful.
Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem
arises involving conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are
of this sort. For example, a company wants to empty waste
into a river; the people living downstream object. Ethical
egoism advises that both parties actively pursue what they
want. It doesn’t suggest any sort of resolution or
commonsense compromise.
Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality. A
basic assumption made by many moral philosophers—and
many other people, for that matter—is that we should not
discriminate against people on arbitrary grounds such as
race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. But
ethical egoism holds that we should not even try to be
impartial. Rather, we should distinguish between ourselves
and everyone else, and give ourselves preferential treatment.
To many, this seems to contradict the very essence of
morality. The golden rule—versions of which appear in
Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam—says we should treat others as we would like to be
treated. One of the greatest moral philosophers of modern
times, ​ Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued that the
fundamental principle of morality (the “categorical
imperative,” in his jargon) is that we should not make
exceptions of ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t
perform an action if we cannot honestly wish that everyone
would behave in a similar way in the same circumstances.
Model for Ethical Decision Making
1. Gather the Facts - Frequently ethical dilemmas can be
resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case in
question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult,
gathering the facts is the essential first step prior to any
ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analyzing a
case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as
any facts currently not known but that need to be
ascertained. Thus one is asking not only “What do we
know?” but also “ What do we need to know?” in order to
make an intelligent ethical decision.
2. Determine the Ethical Issues
The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests
or goods. It’s these conflicting interests that actually make
for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be presented ia a
______versus _________ format in order to reflect the
interests that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma.
For example, in business ethics there is often a conflict
between the right of a firm to make profit and its obligation
to the community. In this case, the obligation pertains to the
environment
3. What Ethical Principles Have a Bearing On the Case
In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or
principles that are central to the conflicting positions being
taken. It is critical to identify these principles, and in some
cases, to determine whether some principles are to be
weighted more heavily than others. Clearly, biblical
principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may be
other principles that speak to the case that come from other
sources. There may be constitutional principles or
principles drawn from natural law that supplement the
biblical principles that come into play here. The principles
that come out of your mission and calling are also important
to consider.
4. List the Alternatives
Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical
dilemma involves coming up with various alternative
courses of action. Although there will be some alternatives
that you will rule out without much thought, in general the
more alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that
your list will include some high-quality ones. In addition,
you may come up with some very creative alternative that
you had not considered before.
Lawrence Kohlberg, a professor of psychology in Harvard
University is a prominent moral development theorist, but
his thinking grew out of Jean Piaget’s writing on children’s
intellectual development. His theory is descriptive, rather
than, proven facts.
Kohlberg presumes that there are six stages of moral
development that people go through in much the same way
as infants learned first to role over, to sit, to crawl, to stand
and finally to walk. Kohlberg clearly emphasized the
following system of his theory:
1. Everyone goes through each stage in the same order,
but not everyone goes through all the stages and
2. A person at one stage can understand the reasoning
of any stage below him but cannot understand more
than one stage above.
These correlates, especially the latter one, are important
when it comes to assessing the nature of disagreement about
ethical judgment. Perhaps the easiest way is to remember
them is by differing kinds of justification involved in each
stage. There are three levels in his theory and each level is
divided into stages. The schema will show the stages of
moral development:

1. Pre-conventional level
4. Compare the Alternatives With the Principles

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives (pre-conventional because individuals do not yet speak as
according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the members of society, instead they see morality as something
case. In many instances, the case will be resolved at this external to themselves)
point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives
except one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see
if there is a clear decision that can be made without further Stage Description Content Social
deliberations. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then Perspective
the next part is the model that must be considered. At the
least, some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step The first Right is a This stage
of comparison. Stage 1 stage is literal takes an
characterized obedience egocentric
6, Weigh the Consequences Punishment by a view that to rules and point of
and right action is authority, view, a
If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a Obedience
consideration of the consequences of the remaining to behave avoiding person at this
available alternatives is in order. Both positive and negative according to punishment stage does
consequences are to be considered. They should be social , and not not consider
informally weighed, since some positive consequences are acceptable doing the interests
more detrimental than others. norms physical of others and
imposed by harm. does not
7. Make a Decision some What is relate two
authority right is to points of
Deliberations cannot go on forever. At some point, a figure (e.g., avoid view. Actions
decision must be made. Realize that one common element in parent, breaking were justified
ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy and painless teacher) in rules, to in terms of
solutions to them. Frequently the decision that is made is order to avoid obey for physical
one that involves the least number of problems or negative punishment. obedience’ consequence
consequences, not one that is devoid of them. s sake and rather in
to avoid terms
physical psychological
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development damage to interests of
In recent years, psychologist looked at many of the same people and others.
question asked by philosophers have pondered but from authority. Authority’s
their own professional perspective. Psychologist’s theories Thus perspective is
of moral development provide an insight into how moral follow and confused
disagreement developed and even how they untangle it. obey with one’s
because of own.
the
consequenc
 e of
punishment Stage Description Content Social
and due to Perspective
superior
power of Stage 3 Characterized It sees what This stage
authorities. by an attitude is right is takes the
Mutual and which one living up perspective
interpersonal seeks to do according to of the
comformity that will gain the individual in
the approval expectations relationship
Stage Descriptio Content Social Perspective of others by people to other
n that are individuals.
close to Thus, a
them, like person in
Stage 2 Is What is This stage takes a
the family, this stage is
characteri right is concrete individua
Individual zed by a following listic perspective. community. aware of the
and view that rules when A person at this Being good shared
Instrumen and having feelings,
right it is to stage separates his
tal good agreement
behavior someone’s own interests and
Exchange behavior and
means immediate points of view
means expectations
acting in interest. from those of
one’s own Right is authorities and having good that take
best acting to others. The person motives and primacy
interpersonal over the
interests. meet one’s integrates or relates
feelings such individual
interests conflicting
as empathy, interests.
and needs individual interests
love, trust,
and letting to one another
others do through concern.
the same. instrumental
Right is exchange of
also what is service, need for
fair, that is, others and other’s
what is an goodwill. Perhaps Stage Description Content Social
equal through fairness Perspective
exchange, a giving each person
deal, am the same amount. Stage 4 Is What is right This stage
agreement. characterized is fulfilling differentiates
The reason Law and by abiding one’s own societal
for doing Order the law and duty to point of
what is respecting which one view from
right is to authority and had agreed. interpersonal
serve one’s performing The reasons agreement or
own one’s duty for doing motives. A
needs/inter so that social what is right person at
ests in a order is are to keep this stage
world maintained. the takes the
where one institutions viewpoint of
must going as a the system,
recognize whole. which
that other defines roles
people have and rules,
their individual
interests as relations in
well. terms of
one’s own
place in the
2. Conventional Level system.

--- (it speaks on isolated individuals rather than as members

of the society. It sees individual exchanging favors, but there
is still no identification with the values of the
family/community) Post-conventional level

-- (moral decisions are generated from the rights, values or

principles that are or that could be agreeable to all
individuals composing or creating a society designed to Principles by an this stage is perspective
have fair and beneficial practices) attitude of guided by that a person
respect for universal takes a stand
universal ethical in view of
Stage Description Content Social principle and principles, moral
Perspective the demands particularly principle
of individual law, social from which
Stage 5 Is What is right This stage conscience. agreement social
characterized is the takes a are usually agreement
Social by thinking awareness of ‘prior-to- valid are derived
Contract and about a the fact that society’ because it is on which
Individual society in a people hold perspective. anchored to they are
Rights very a variety of It means that principles. grounded.
theoretical values and individuals When law
way, opinion that are aware of perhaps
stepping most values the values violates the
back from and rules are and rights universal
their own relative to prior to principle one
established one’s group. social is often acts
society and The reason attachment in
considering for doing and contract. accordance
the rights what is right, The person with the
and values is in general, integrates principle.
of the feeling perspective The
society obligated to by formal principle of
ought to obey the mechanism equality,
uphold. law, because of justice,
one has agreement, respect and
made a contract, others.
social objective These are
contract to impartiality not only
make and and due values but
abide by process. regarded as
laws for the principle
good of all that is of
and to used in order
protect their to generate
own rights decisions.
and the
rights of
others. Like,
family,
friend. One
is concerned
that laws
and duties
be based
from a
rational
calculation
of the
overall
‘utility’.
‘The greatest
good for the
greatest
number’

Stage Description Content Social

Perspective

Universal Is The right This stage

Ethical characterized action on takes the