MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Is lying good?

Can you think of any situation where lying is better than telling the truth?

What does it count, intentions or consequences?

MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Questions concerning how we ought to conduct
ourselves in the world:
• How we ought to live.
• How we ought to deal with one another.
• Why should we be moral?
• Why should we do the right thing if we can get
away with doing the wrong thing?
ETHICS Metaethics concerned with “the very
nature of ethics and its basic concepts.”

METAETHICS

NORMATIVE
ETHICS
“Normative Ethics is about making
judgements about what particular things
are right or wrong.”
 • “Normative Ethics is about making
judgements about what particular things
are right or wrong.”
NORMATIVE • What should I do?
• What is the right or wrong action?
ETHICS

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “3.20. Metaethics/normative ethics”, p. 147

METAETHICS
Metaethics concerned with “the very nature of ethics and its basic
concepts.”

• What does good mean?

• Are there values independent of humans/valuers?

Metaethical Positions:
• Relativism
• Anti – realism
• Cognitivism
• Non-cognitivism
• Subjectivism

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “3.20. Metaethics/normative ethics”, p. 147

METAETHICS/NORMATIVE ETHICS

Metaethical Position

Moral Judgements Moral Judgments

are about objective express subjective
facts preferences
Normative Position

Arranged marriages
are morally wrong Ali Ayşe

Arranged marriages
are acceptable Ceren Rıdvan

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “3.20. Metaethics/normative ethics”, p. 147

 Are there moral principles or truths that are
objectively valid?

Is serving one’s own self-interest the only moral

duty?

MORAL Do the consequences of an action make it right

QUESTIONS or wrong?

Are actions right or wrong in themselves,

independently of their consequences?

Is morality more concerned with the character of

a virtuous person than with rules of conduct?
 Ethical doctrines and theories

Ethical objectivism: the view that there are universal

and objectively valid moral principles. Certain moral
principles apply to all people in all times, and they are
not based on the opinions of individuals or cultures.

Absolutism: the claim that not only are moral

principles objective but they cannot be overridden and
there cannot be any exceptions to them.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 427 & p. 443

 Ethical doctrines and theories
Ethical relativism: the position that there are no
objective or universally valid moral principles;
because all moral judgments are simply a matter of
human opinion.
• Subjective ethical relativism: the doctrine that
what is right and wrong is solely a matter of each
individual’s personal opinion.
• Conventional ethical relativism: the claim that
what is really right or wrong is relative to each
particular society.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 426-27

 Five Questions Concerning the Nature of Morality
Kinds of ethical Are there Is serving Do the Are actions Is morality more
objectivism moral one’s own consequences right or wrong concerned with
principles self-interest of an action in themselves, the character of a
or truths the only make it right independently virtuous person
that are moral duty? or wrong? of their than with rules of
objectively consequences? conduct?
valid?

Utilitarianism Yes No Yes No No

Kantian ethics Yes No No Yes Morality is

concerned
with both

Lawhead, William F. The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
 Five Questions Concerning the Nature of Morality

Kinds of Are there Is serving Do the Are actions Is morality more

ethical moral one’s own consequenc right or wrong concerned with
objectivism principles or self-interest es of an in themselves, the character of a
truths that the only action make independently virtuous person
are moral duty? it right or of their than with rules of
objectively wrong? consequences conduct?
valid? ?

Virtue Yes No No Only as they Yes

ethics relate to
certain
character
traits

Lawhead, William F. The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Ethical doctrines and theories

Ethical egoism: the theory that people ought always to do only what is in their own
self-interest.

Psychological egoism: the theory that people always act so as to serve their own
interests, or at least what they believe to be their interests.

Hedonism: the position that pleasure is the only thing that has value.

Altruism: the claim that we should be unselfishly concerned for the welfare of others
and should act for the sake of other people’s interests and needs.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 427 & p.455

Ethical doctrines and theories

Consequentialism: any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of
an act according to the desirability or undesirability of the action's consequences.

Utilitarianism: the theory that the right action is the one that produces the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

Deontological ethics: any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness
of an act in terms of the intrinsic moral value of the act itself.
• Intrinsic value: the property that something has if it is good or desirable in itself.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 427 & pp. 472-73.

Ethical doctrines and theories

Kantian ethics: the theory that we have absolute moral duties that are
determined by reason and that are not affected by the consequences.

Virtue ethics: any theory that sees the primary focus of ethics to be the character
of the person rather than that person’s actions or duties.

Feminist Ethics: the attempt to correct male biases in traditional ethical theory by
emphasizing relationships over abstract principles and compassion over analytical
reason..

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 428

 Moral must be supported by
judgements: strong /cogent/sound
arguments (Good
Reason)
must be free of
Each individual’s interests
individual interests are equally important
(Impartiality)
MORAL
JUDGEMENT must be free of
prejudice and cultural
conditioning

are different than

expressing personal
taste

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy

What is an Ethical Dilemma?

• A situation where values are in conflict

• Two or more values you hold dear - or –
• Personal value conflicts with organizational value

Value Value
Source: Linda K. Trevino, Katherine A. Nelson (2014): Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How
to Do It Right (6th Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Ethical decision-making process

Recognise Make Establish Engage in

moral moral moral moral
issue judgement intent behaviour

Source: Derived from Rest (1986), as cited in Jones (1991).

Thomas M. Jones (1991) Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations; An Issue Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), p.368 18
THE RING OF GYGES
— Why should we be moral?
— Why should we do the right thing if we can get away with
whatever we wish to do?
— If you had a guarantee that you would never be caught or
punished, what would you do?
— Do the right thing?
— Satisfy your own self-interest regardless of others?

— Shouldn’t it be the case that moral considerations must have a

force on one’s self-interest, comfort or desires?
— What is the major factor that guides our moral conduct?

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp.102-104

 Ring of Gyges

Republic, Book 2,
Plato
359d-360c

Glaucon

Why should one be

Moral?

Socrates
 Ring of Gyges

Justice and virtue are

desirable in and of
themselves.

The only reason people act morally is that they lack

the power to behave otherwise. Take away the fear
of punishment, and the "just" and the "unjust"
person will both behave in the same way: unjustly,
immorally.
 Ring of Gyges

Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of

Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake
made an opening in the earth at the place where he
was feeding his flock.
...

looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to

him, more than human, and having nothing on but a
gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and
reascended.
 Ring of Gyges

If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of

Suppose
becoming now that
invisible, andthere
neverwere two
doing such
any magic
wrong rings, what was
or touching
and the just put on one of them and the unjust the
another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most
other;idiot,
wretched no man can bethey
although imagined
would to be ofhim
praise such
to an
oneiron
another's faces,
nature that he would stand fast in justice.
and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too
might suffer injustice.

having the inner

balance is what it is to
be moral.
THE RING OF GYGES
Glaucon disagrees with Socrates and insists that justice and virtue are
not in fact desirable in and of themselves. In support of his claim,
Glaucon offers the following story which suggests that the only reason
people act morally is that they lack the power to behave otherwise.Take
away the fear of punishment, and the "just" and the "unjust" person
will both behave in the same way: unjustly, immorally.

Plato, Republic, Book 2, 359d-360c

THE RING OF GYGES
Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there
was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the
earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the
sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other
marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which
he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as
appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a
gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and
reascended.

Plato, Republic, Book 2, 359d-360c

THE RING OF GYGES
Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they
might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into
their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was
sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside
his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the
company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer
present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he
turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials
of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the
collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared.
Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who
were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the
queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him,
and took the kingdom.
Plato, Republic, Book 2, 359d-360c
THE RING OF GYGES
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of
them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron
nature that he would stand fast in justice.
No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely
take what he liked out of the market, go into houses and lie with any one at his
pleasure, kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like
a god among men.
Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would
both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great
proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any
good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he
can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the
individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say
that they are right. Plato, Republic, Book 2, 359d-360c
THE RING OF GYGES

If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming

invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was
another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most
wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one
another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from
a fear that they too might suffer injustice.

Imagine for a moment that you were in possession of such a ring. How
would you use it? If you had a perfect guarantee that you would never be
caught or punished, what would you do?

Plato, Republic, Book 2, 359d-360c

plato
Thus in the story it has been said that no one could resist the
temptation to do what is good for his/her self-benefit if s/he
can get away with it and if s/he won’t do such a thing she must
be a fool.
Here, by taking out a strong motive such as punishment, Plato
emphasizes the question why should we be moral?
Is there any other reason to behave morally?
For Plato there should be.
Plato’s answer to this question is strongly related his notion of
self.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 104-5
PLATO’S ACCOUNT OF SELF
The soul has three parts:
— Reason : (nous) that knows reality and calculates and makes
decisions
— Desire : (epithumia) that is the irrational, appetitive part,
composed of instinctive cravings, urges and
appetites.
— Spirit : (thumos) that is something like courage and self-
assertion.
In a properly balanced soul, the rational part (reason) rules.
With the help of spirit, reason controls and regulates the
desires.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p.58; 107.

 Plato, Pheadrus (246a – 254e) The Chariot Allegory

Appetitive Part
Desires: the irrational
part, composed of
instinctive cravings,
urges and appetites.

Rational
Part Spirited Part
that knows reality the desires that love
and calculates victory and honour.
and makes Like courage and
decisions self-assertion.
Obeys the rational
part.

In a properly balanced soul, the rational part (reason) rules. With the help
of spirit, reason controls and regulates the desires.
Plato and ınner balance
Reason sees the overall picture of what is good for the self as a
whole.
As reason knows what is good for the self and ‘what is good for
the self’ is for our self-interest then being governed by reason I
am self-interested.
When reason rules I have a balanced soul.
For Plato, having this inner balance is what it is to be moral.
Thus, self-interest is not in conflict with morality.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 107

Plato and inner balance
Being moral means having a harmonious, well-ordered soul, in
which the various parts are organised by the rational part for the
good of each part and for the good of the whole.
It is a state that we not only need to be in for our own good but
which we also enjoy being in.
The moral life is not only desirable but also happy.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 107

Plato and inner balance
In addition to the parts of soul we have virtues of courage,
temperance and wisdom.
Wisdom: We are wise because the ruling element possesses
knowledge of what is advantageous for each part and for the
whole.
Temperance: We are temperate/self-controlled when all these
three elements are in friendly and harmonious agreement spirit
and desire are subordinate to the ruling part.
Courage: We are brave because the spirit part allows us to
pursue the precepts of reason and to overcome the distractions
of pain and pleasure.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 107-8.
Plato and inner balance
An immoral person is;
— unbalanced
— a slave of his/her own desires
— close to being a mad man
— no longer responds to the needs of others

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp 108

Plato and inner balance
Plato’s account of morality is also connected to his account of
knowledge.
To comprehend the true nature of things is to have the
knowledge of forms, which are timeless, unchanging and
beyond the world of sense experience.
Thus, there is the form of good, consist with the forms of moral
ideals and virtues (wisdom, courage, and temperance).
There is one universal, objective form of the good life, which
we can discover through our reason. The basis of morality is
found in Plato’s conception of ultimate, objective reality (the
world of forms).
Is there only one correct answer to what is the right thing to do?
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 109
Plato and inner balance
Thus, for Plato, being moral, living the good life, requires
controlling and restraining the desires.
Plato equates being morally good with having a well-ordered
self, and moral evil with internal disorder.
Plato says “Justice . . . is a principle of this kind; its real concern
is not with external actions, but with a man’s inward self, his
true concerns and interest.”
Plato, Republic, Book 5,443d

For Plato, if we acquire the appropriate knowledge, and develop

virtuous habits based on reason, we will lead the good life.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 109 -110

Religion and morality
Many people hold that morality is not possible without a
religious basis.
‘If God does not exist, everything is permissible’
In order to guide us in the right way of living, God has
formulated certain rules we ought to obey. But although we
know what good is we can still choose not to obey it, as we
are free agents.
Moral rules are God’s laws, his commandments.
The ‘divine command theory’ states that morally right means
that which is commanded by God and morally wrong means
which is forbidden by God.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 111
Religion and morality
Are God’s commands right because they are right or right
because God commands it?

The EUTHYPHRO dilemma

“Is the holy loved by the gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved?”
(10a)

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 113 A fresco by Raphael.

Religion and morality
God has infinite wisdom to know what is right and what is
wrong and in the light of this knowledge commands the right
conduct. If this is so, God is no longer required in order to
make an action right or wrong.

There is also another religion based theory that defines why

we should be moral. That is “natural law” theory. This
theory gained its religious connotations with Thomas Aquinas
(1225-1274). The idea of natural law can be traced back to
Aristotle.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 113

WHAT KIND OF LAW IS NATURAL LAW?
Natural Law must not be confused with “laws of nature” which are:
— The generalizations of natural science
— Descriptive laws that tell how scientists believe nature behaves.

Natural law differs from “laws of nature” in that:

— Is a moral law.
— It is prescriptive.
— It tells us how we ought to behave.

“We ought to examine our nature as human beings to see what is essential
for us to function well as members of our species. We look to certain
aspects of our nature to know what is our good what we ought to do.”
The natural law is regarded as universal and higher than the civil laws of a
particular society.
Barbara MacKinnon, “Natural Law and Natural Rights”,p.98
NATURAL LAW THEORY
Aristotle (384 B.C. - 322 B.C.) observed nature closely and he found out
that development of organisms follow the same path, i.e., tadpoles always
become frogs. Thus, he concluded that “there was an order in nature.”

“the good is that at which all things aim.”

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

In order to see what is the good of a behaviour or being we must look at the
goal of that behaviour or being.
“The good of the shipbuilder is to build ships.”
What about human beings? What is the good of the human being?
What is it to be human?

Barbara MacKinnon, “Natural Law and Natural Rights”,p.99

NATURAL LAW THEORY

Human beings are natural beings with a specific human characteristics and
abilities, that is their human nature.

Human beings have much in common with other living beings. But
according to Aristotle, the unique human character was human beings’
“rational element.”

Our “rational element” has two functions:

1.To know
2.To guide choice and action

In order to function well, we, as human beings, must develop our rational
element and know the world and choose wisely.

Barbara MacKinnon, “Natural Law and Natural Rights”,p.99-100

NATURAL LAW THEORY

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) reinterpreted natural law so that “the natural

was part of divine law or plan for the universe.”

• Aristotle agrees that “there is an order in nature”, but as the universe is

eternal and not created by God, this order “did not come from the
mind of God.”
• Whereas, Augustine and Aquinas say that there is an order in nature
because it was created by God.

But there are also post-religious ways of justifying morality.

Barbara MacKinnon, “Natural Law and Natural Rights”, p.100-101

Inherit the Wind is a 1960 movie based on a real-life case in 1925. In the film, B.T.
Cates is a science teacher who is arrested for teaching Darwin's theories.. In the
court, two well known lawyers argue the case for and against the crime of
teaching evolution. Outside the court there the case is discussed by the
community and the press.
Inherit the Wind (Stanley Kramer, 1960)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8