1

ETHICS, VALUES, MORALS

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
LEARNING OUTCOMES
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 VALUES
1.3 MORAL
1.3.1 MORAL REALISM
1.3.2 MORAL ABSOLUTISM
1.4 OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL THEORIES
1.4.1 NORMATIVE THEORY
1.4.2 META ETHICS THEORY
1.4.3 APPLIED ETHICS THEORY
1.5 UTILITARIAN ETHICS
1.6 DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
1.7 VIRTUE ETHICS
1.8 KANTIAN THEORY
1.9 RIGHTS BASED THEORIES
1.10 CONTRACTARIANISM
1.11 CONSEQUENTIALISM
1.12 SITUATION ETHICS
1.13 SUBJECTIVISM
1.14 CULTURAL RELATIVISM
1.15 EMOTIVISM
1.16 DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
1.17 MORAL RELATIVISM
1.18 INTUITIONISM
1.19 ETHICAL EGOISM
1.20 MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THEORIES
1.21 COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THEORIES
 1.22 SUMMARY
1.23 KEYWORDS

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
After studying this chapter, you would be able to understand

• The meaning of ethics, values, and morals

• Difference between values and ethics
• Morals, theories related to morals
• Normative theory, Metaethics, Applied ethics
• Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, deontology, virtue theory,

• Contractarianism, consequentialism, situation ethics

• Subjectivism, cultural relativism, divine command theory, emotivism, moral relativism,
• Moral universalism, intuitionism, ethical egoism,
• The common ground between theories

On successful completion of this chapter the learner will be able to:

• Explain about ethics, morals, and values.
• Summarise normative theory Meta ethics theory and applied ethics theory
• Evaluate utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics
• Discuss the Kantian theory, rights-based theories, and consequentialism
• Discuss subjectivism, cultural relativism, and moral relativism
• Assess emotivism, divine command theory
• Review intuitionism and ethical egoism

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Ethics seeks to resolve
questions of human morality. The English word “ethics” is derived from the Ancient Greek
word ēthikós meaning “relating to one’s character”, which itself comes from the root word
êthos meaning “character, moral nature”. This word was transferred into Latin as ethica and
then into French as éthique, from which it was transferred into English. The word ethics in
English refers to several things
 Rushworth Kidder states that “standard definitions of ethics have typically included such
phrases as the science of the ideal human character or the science of moral duty. Richard
William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as “a set of concepts and principles that guide us
in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures”. The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy states that the word ethic is “commonly used interchangeably with ‘morality’ and
sometimes it is used narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or
individual”. Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving following
social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law and don’t treat ethics as a standalone
concept.
Ethics refer to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy. As the English philosopher
Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy: “What inquires a
philosophical one is a reflective generality and a style of argument that claims to be rationally
persuasive.” As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: “Ethics, understood as the capacity to
think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values, is a generic
human capacity”. Ethics also is used to describe a particular person’s principles or habits .
We, humans, have an element of nature working against us, but it is arguably more in our
nature to be ethical, else we would live like animals. We have developed cultures that reflect a
collective understanding of ethics. Culture provides a means of social group bond; they
provide systems of justice, means of distributing wealth, taking care of health, etc. Cultures
need to address fundamental elements of ethics.
While an individual realize an ethical injustice, groups of individuals in the form of culture
are typically required to agree with the aggrieved individual and lobby on their behalf to right
an injustice. Therefore, ethics is individually knowable and understandable, but cultures are
required to provide ethical consistency and social order
At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make
decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and
society and is also described as moral philosophy. For emotional issues such as euthanasia or
the living together concept we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains just go with
the flow. But there’s another way of tackling these issues, and that’s where philosophers come
in. They offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral
problems. So, ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that could be used to find
our way through difficult issues.
Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans
have to do, usually in terms of rights, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. A person
following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. Feelings frequently deviate
from what is ethical. Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course,
prescribe high ethical standards. If ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply
only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of
the religious person. Religion sets high ethical standards and provides intense motivations for
ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical
standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws deviate from what is ethical. Finally,
being ethical is not the same as doing whatever society accepts. In any society, most people
accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society deviate from
what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good
example of a morally corrupt society. Another example of recent days is China regarding Covid
-19.
 If being ethical is doing whatever society accepts, then to find out what is ethical, one would
have to find out what society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide on an ethical issue by
doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to
equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept living together but many
others do not. If being ethical is whatever society accepts, one would have to find an
agreement on issues which does not exist.
Ethics is of two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong
that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to
society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose
the responsibility to refrain from assault, murder, stealing, rape, and fraud. Ethical standards
also include those that enjoin virtues of loyalty, compassion, and honesty. And, ethical
standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom,
and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are
supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one’s ethical standards. As
mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is
necessary to constantly examine one’s standards to ensure that they are reasonable. Ethics
also means the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct,
and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards.

1.2 VALUES
Values together lay the foundation for sustainability. While they are sometimes used
synonymously, they are different, wherein ethics are the set of rules that govern the behavior
of a person, established by a group or culture. Values refer to the beliefs for which a person
has an enduring preference. Ethics and values are important in every aspect of life when we
have to choose between two things, wherein ethics determine what is right, values determine
what is important.
In a world of intense competition, every business entity works on certain principles and
beliefs which are nothing but values. Likewise, ethics is implemented in the organization to
ensure the protection of the interest of stakeholders like the government, customers,
employees, society, and suppliers.

VALUES
Values are the principles and ideals, that
helps them in making a judgment of what
is
more important.
Stimuli for thinking
Differs from person to person
What we want to do or achieve
Determines level of importance.
Level of importance
ETHICS
Ethics are the guidelines for conduct,
that address questions about morality.
System of moral principles.
Uniform
What is morally correct or incorrect, in
the given situation.
Determines extent of rightness or
the wrongness of our options.
Constrains

Table 1.1 Difference between ethics and values

Values refer to the important and enduring beliefs or principles, based on which an individual
makes judgments in life. It is at the center of our lives that acts as a standard of behavior.
They severely affect the emotional state of mind of an individual. They can be personal values,
cultural values, or corporate values. Values are forces that cause an individual to behave in a
particular manner. It sets our priorities in life, i.e. what we consider in the first place. It is a
reason behind the choices we make. It reflects what is more important for us. So, if we are
true to our values and make our choices accordingly, then the way we live to express our core
values. Moreover, if you understand an individual’s values, you can easily identify what is
important for them. The fundamental differences between ethics and value are described in
the form of the tabular column:

1.3 MORAL
Moral values are relative values that protect life and are respectful of the dual life value of
self and others. The great moral values, such as truth, freedom, charity, etc., have one thing
in common. When they are functioning correctly, they are life protecting or life-enhancing for
all. But they are still relative values. Our relative moral values must be constantly examined to
make sure that they are always performing their life protecting the mission. Our enemies have
their standard of honor, they have courage, and they are surely committed. Respect for the
universal life value sets us apart from our enemies.
Moral theories are another tool to help an individual clearly and logically think about an
ethical issue, and arrive at a decision that can be rationally defended. As John Rowan states
“A moral theory is a mechanism for assessing whether a particular action or rule is ethically
justified. More precisely, a moral theory helps us to sharpen our moral vision, it helps us
determine whether an action or a rule is ethically right (meaning it is required and must be
performed and followed), wrong (meaning it is not be performed or followed), or permissible
(meaning it may be, but need not be, performed or followed).” Moral theories range from
Utilitarianism which bases what is considered “morally right” on the consequences of an
action, to deontological theories, which base concepts of what is considered “morally right” on
universal laws that exist outside of a specific situation. While these approaches differ
significantly, all moral theories have two things in common. For a moral theory to be helpful,
it should provide us with the source of moral values (reasons why we should be moral), and it
should provide us with a framework or strategy for ranking moral norms when we confront a
dilemma.
1.3.1 Moral realism
Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real objective moral facts or truths in the
universe. Moral statements provide factual information about those truths. An example of a
moral realist is Karl Marx. His writings in Das Kapital speak real facts.
1.3.2 Moral absolutism
Some people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of
thinking is called moral absolutism. Moral absolutism argues that some moral rules are
always true, that these rules are discovered, and that these rules apply to everyone. The
reason for most people disagrees with moral absolutism: 1.Many of us feels that the
consequences of an act or the circumstances surrounding it are relevant to whether that act is
good or bad 2. Absolutism doesn’t fit with respect for diversity and tradition. Example: Nearly
all traditional good versus evil stories assume moral absolutism and capitalize on its appeal;
Star Wars goes a bit further by not only making an absolute distinction between good and evil
but even making that distinction part of natural law, with the light and dark sides of the
Force. Ideas like this appeal powerfully to us because we feel good about ourselves when we
can identify wholeheartedly with one side and feel good about hating the bad guys.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL THEORIES
Have you ever seen someone harassed, and debated within yourself what you should do?
Or, perhaps, you found a wallet full of money and wondered if you should keep it, find its
owners, or do something else? We frequently encounter decisions, and we need to decide how
we will respond. Hopefully, we will respond ethically although even trying to determine what
the ethical choice is can be difficult to determine. One method that philosophers have used to
try to determine what is ethical is called virtue ethics (sometimes called moral ethics). There
are three categories of ethical theories: Normative ethics, Meta ethics, applied ethics.
1.4.1 Normative theory
This theory is the study of what we should do or should not do but also why we do things
that in some instances may appear counter-intuitive to what we think an ethical decision
would be. Example: Donation for charity is good but not mandatory. Such theories are often
called ethical systems because they provide a system that allows people to determine ethical
actions that individuals should take. Evans and Macmillan define normative ethics as
“theories of ethics that are concerned with the norms, standards or criteria that define
principles of ethical behavior.” The most common examples of normative ethical theories are
utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics (deontology), consequentialism, virtue theory,
intuitionism, and divine command theory, which are described later part of this chapter.
These systems are used by individuals to make decisions when confronted with ethical
dilemmas.
Normative ethics is the study of comparing different ethical systems based on how they
claim to meet a goalpost, once that goalpost is set. Basically, instead of with objective ethics
which states that there is a predetermined set of goalposts inherent in nature or a spiritual
creator of nature after people have subjectively determined which goalpost they think ethics
should pursue, normative ethics explores how different ethical systems reach that goalpost.
As such, there isn’t an example of normative ethics that is an entire ethical system itself.
Instead, normative ethics refers to the entire branch of ethics that explores differences in how
an ethical system reaches a goalpost. This gets confusing because virtue ethics is referred to
as one branch of normative ethics. After all, it is a way to examine the ethical claims in a
specific ethical system, but it is itself also an ethical system. Currently, normative ethics is
claimed to ontologically contain 3 different arguably combinable or irreducible to each other,
approaches virtue ethics (moral character), deontology (rules), and consequentialism
(consequences). Let’s look at the harassing example discussed already. If you were to take a
deontology view to this problem, you would focus on the rules as the proper course of action
to take. This can be the rules of your workplace - are you supposed to report all harassment
to HR? In this case, deontology will dictate that the ethical decision would be to report this
harassment to HR.
Or, perhaps you know that the consequences of not stopping the harassment will lead to a
hostile work environment for everyone, and the consequences of stopping the harassment will
lead to a good work environment. This would be a consequentialist view to take. Finally, a
virtue ethics view will look into you and believe that it is morally good to stand up for other
people. Thus, you will stop the harassment because you believe it to be morally good to do so.

All approaches could end with the same result (although in many cases we do end up with
different results).
The main difference between the approaches is simply how we reach that result.
1.4.2 Meta ethics theory
This theory does not address how we ought to behave; rather, meta-ethics is related more
to the study of the ethical theory itself. Here the interest is in evaluating moral and ethical
theories and systems. For example, moral relativism is a meta-ethical theory because it
interprets discussions around ethics; a question asked within moral relativism is “is ethics
culturally relative?” Evans and Macmillan define metaethics as “theories of ethics concerned
with the moral concepts, theories, and the meaning of moral language. Pollock further defines
meta-ethics as “a discipline that investigates the meaning of ethical systems and whether they
are relative or are universal, and are self-constructed or are independent of human creation.”
Theories like ethical Subjectivism, moral relativism, divine command theory, emotivism, moral
universalism are following meta-ethics.
1.4.3 Applied ethics theory
This theory describes how we apply normative theories to specific issues, usually related to
work or belonging to an organization; for example, policies and procedures of organizations or
ethical codes of outlaw bikers versus ethical codes of police officers. Evans and Macmillan
define applied ethics as “theories of ethics concerned with the application of normative ethics
to particular ethical issues.” Examples are business ethics, environmental ethics, etc.,

1.5 UTILITARIAN ETHICS

The first ethical system in normative ethics is utilitarianism. This is often equated with the
concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” The idea is that ethical decisions are
made based on the consequences of the action, which is also sometimes called
consequentialism. Interestingly, Millennials are naïve slacker and submissive wimps, who lack
ambition, can’t concentrate, are unreliable, have short memories are not fit for corporate life.
Millennials will use utilitarian reasoning to avoid confrontation and achieve consensus. The
attraction of this ethical perspective may lie in the fact that it appears to be a way to weigh out
the impact of behavior and determine the greatest good for the greatest number. While this
idea initially may seem appealing, particularly with a field that has a core duty to the public; it
does not provide a solid ethical framework for decision making. When individuals are deciding
what to do for themselves alone, they consider only their utility. For example, if you are
choosing ice cream for yourself, the utilitarian view is you should choose a flavor that will give
you the most pleasure.
Right and wrong are determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of the
action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory. Basic ideas: All action leads to some
end. But the end is attaining the highest good. This is pleasure or happiness. Also, that there
is a First Principle of Morals -- ‘Principle of Utility’, alternatively called ‘The Greatest
Happiness Principle’ (GHP), usually characterized as the ideal of working towards the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. The GHP implies that we ought to act to maximize human
welfare. We do this in a particular instance by choosing the action that maximizes
pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.
The higher pleasures (those obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits), carried greater
weight than the lower pleasures (those obtained through sensation). The upshot is that in
determining what action to perform, both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness
count. It is to be noted that utilitarians are not a hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only with
their happiness. Utilitarians are concerned with everyone’s happiness, so it is Altruistic. In
general, morally right actions are those that produce the best overall consequences / total
amount of pleasure or absence of pain. Modern versions of Utilitarianism have dropped the
idea of maximizing pleasure in favor of maximizing the satisfaction of all relevant peoples’
preferences and interests. Also, some distinguish between Act Utilitarianism and Rule
Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism makes the utilitarian calculation based on the evaluation of
the consequences of a single isolated act. It is thought by some that this leads to several
significant problems, for instance, that one person may be harmed if that leads to the greatest
good for everyone. To overcome these problems, some advocate Rule Utilitarianism -- the view
that we should adopt only those rules (for governing society) that produce the greatest good for
all.

1.6 DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

The second prominent concept, deontological ethics, is associated with the father of modern
deontology, Immanuel Kant. He was known for the ‘Categorical Imperative’ that looks for
transcendent principles that apply to all humans. The idea is that “human beings should be
treated with dignity and respect because they have rights.” Put another way, it could be
argued that in deontological ethics “people have to respect other people’s rights and treat them
accordingly.” The core concept behind this is that there are objective obligations, or duties,
that are required of all people. When faced with an ethical situation, then, the process is
simply one of identifying one’s duty and making the appropriate decision. For example: killing
someone is wrong even if it is for self-defense.
The challenges to this perspective, however, include 1) conflicts that arise when there is not
an agreement about the principles involved in the decision; 2) the implications of making a
“right” choice that has bad consequences; and 3) what decisions should be made when duties
conflict. These challenges are ones that should be considered when relying on this as an
ethical system. However, despite these concerns, many have found that deontology provides
the strongest model for applied public relations ethics. Bowen suggests that “deontology is
based on the moral autonomy of the individual, similar to the autonomy and freedom from
encroachment that public relations seek to be considered excellent. That ideological
consistency gives the theory posed here a solid theoretical foundation with the practice of
public relations as well as a normative theory function.” Similarly, Fitzpatrick & Gauthier
suggest, “practitioners need some basis on which to judge the rightness of the decisions they
make every day. They need ethical principles derived from the fundamental values that define
their work as public relations professionals.” A key thought in this concept is the assumption
that there need to be some objective morals that professionals rely on to determine ethical
behavior.

1.7 VIRTUE ETHICS

Finally, a third and growing area of philosophical reasoning with ethics is known as virtue
ethics, one that has gained more attention in public relations scholarship in recent years. This
philosophy stems from Aristotle and is based on the virtues of the person making a decision.
The consideration in virtue ethics is essential “what makes a good person,” or, for this
discussion, “what makes good public relations professional?” Virtue ethics require the
decision-maker to understand what virtues are good for public relations and then decisions
are made in light of those particular virtues. For example, if the virtue of honesty is of utmost
importance to a good public relations professional, then all decisions should be made ethically
to ensure honesty is preserved.
While this theory is growing in popularity, several objections can be made. First, in terms of
the public relations profession, the focus on the virtues of the professionals themselves seems
to miss the importance and role of obligations to clients and the public. The industry is not
simply about what public relations people do themselves, but ultimately the impact on society.
Additionally, it also can face the same obstacle as deontological ethics when having conflicting
virtues. If there is a virtue of loyalty to a client and honesty to the public, what happens when
they conflict? To which one should a professional defer? Virtue ethics looks at the virtue or
moral character, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of actions -
indeed some philosophers of this school deny that there can be such things as universal
ethical rules. Virtue ethics is particularly concerned with the way individuals live their lives
and less concerned with assessing particular actions. It develops the idea of good actions by
looking at the way virtuous people express their inner goodness in the things that they do. To
put it very simply, virtue ethics teaches that an action is right if it is an action that a virtuous
person would do in the same circumstances and that a virtuous person is someone who has a
particularly good character.
These three theories of ethics (utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, virtue ethics) form the
foundation of normative ethics conversations. It is important, however, that public relations
professionals also understand how to apply these concepts to the actual practice of the
profession. The ethical discussion that focuses on how a professional makes decisions, known
as applied ethics, is heavily influenced by the role or purpose of the profession within society.
Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting following the traditional virtues
-- making the good person. Of particular concern are excellences of character -- i.e., the moral
virtues. Three steps to the argument:
(1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.
(2) Happiness consists of acting following reason.
(3) Acting following reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional virtues.

1.8 KANTIAN THEORY

Kant believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were
prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the
alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we
decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no,
then we must not act. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than
merely using them for my purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not act.
Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory. According to these theories, the
rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they
fulfill our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred
to it as The Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative determines what our moral
duties are. An imperative is a command. So, “Pay your taxes!” is an imperative, as are “Stop
kicking me!” and “Don’t kill animals!”. Hypothetical Imperatives are the imperatives command
conditionally on your having a relevant desire. E.g. “If you want to go to medical school, study
biology in college.” If you don’t want to go to medical school, this command doesn’t apply to
you. Another example, your father says, “If you are hungry, then go eat something!”. If you
arent hungry, then you are free to ignore the command. Categorical Imperatives are making
commands unconditionally. E.g. “Don’t cheat on your taxes.” Even if you want to cheat and
doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat.
This is called the categorical imperative i.e., Principle of Universaliszability (something like
The Golden Rule). The basic idea is that we should adopt as action-guiding rules (i.e., maxims)
only those that can be universally accepted. Consider someone wondering if they could break
a promise if keeping it became inconvenient. Kant says no because making promises then
becomes, in essence, contradictory. The thinking is that a promise is, by definition, something
you keep. The above maxim would lead to a contradiction of will, i.e., “I’ll make a promise
(something I keep), but I’ll break it if I choose”.
Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting. Never
treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as an end in themselves. We
can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society. What is wrong with the slave
society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to the slave owner’s
ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot is that no person’s interests
(or rights) can be overridden by another’s, or the majority. Many think that this way of
formulating the Categorical Imperative shows that Kantianism is anti-Utilitarian. Some things
to ask about Kantianism: Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing that counts
morally? Must we always ignore good consequences? Is it always wrong to treat people merely
as a means to an end? (Can we do otherwise?)

1.9 RIGHTS BASED THEORIES

Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are non-consequentialist. The basic
idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide what the
right requires. Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is one in
which the corresponding duty requires positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation to
sustain someone’s right to life, shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will harm someone.
e.g., Libertarians -- that only negative rights count morally. For instance, the right to life does
not require that we give what is needed to sustain life rather merely that we refrain from
taking any action that would take life. Some things to ask about Rights-based theories: Where
do rights come from? From nature? From principles of Justice? Or, from Utilitarian
procedures? How do we decide between competing rights?

1.10 CONTRACTARIANISM
This theory is also called social contract theory. The principles of right and wrong (or
Justice) are those which everyone in society would agree upon in forming a social contract.
Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical
contract forming procedure. A fine example for this theory is the idea that people give up some
rights to a government or other authority to receive social order.

1.11 CONSEQUENTIALISM
Consequentialism teaches that people should do whatever produces the greatest amount of
good consequences. One famous way of putting this is ‘the greatest good for the greatest
number of people’. The most common forms of consequentialism are the various versions of
utilitarianism, which favors actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. Despite
its obvious common-sense appeal, consequentialism turns out to be a complicated theory and
doesn’t provide a complete solution to all ethical problems. One difference between utilitarian
theory and consequentialism theory does not specify the desired outcome while utilitarian
specifies good as the desired outcome.
Two problems with consequentialism are 1. It can lead to the conclusion that some quite
dreadful acts are good. 2. Predicting and evaluating the consequences of actions is often very
difficult. Non-consequentialism or deontological ethics:
 Non-consequentialism is concerned with the actions themselves and not with the
consequences. It’s the theory that people are using when they refer to “the principle of the
thing”. It teaches that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences
and people should act accordingly. This example may make things clear. Suppose by killing X,
an entirely innocent person, we can save the lives of ten other innocent people.
A consequentialist would say that killing X is justified because it would result in only one
person id dying rather than ten people dying. A non-consequentialist would say it is
inherently wrong to murder people and refused to kill X, not killing X leads to the death of ten
people than killing X.

1.12 SITUATION ETHICS

Situation ethics rejects prescriptive rules and argues that individual ethical decisions should be
made according to the unique situation. Rather than following rules the decision-maker should
follow a desire to seek the best for the people involved. There are no moral rules or rights
- each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. When people talk about these areas,
they are usually discussing an area of ethics known as normative ethics or the process of
considering and determining ethical behavior. Examples of Ethical Behavior in the Workplace:
While understanding the basic principles of business ethics is important, it is arguably more
important to understand how these ideas apply to day-to-day business operations.
Examples of Unethical Behavior in the Workplace: Just as it is important to understand
how to practically apply ethical behavior, it is equally important to understand what qualifies
as unethical behavior. It is not uncommon for conflicts to arise between employees in the
workplace. Ethically, it is the job of company leadership and management to remain impartial
during these conflicts. For example, if two of a manager’s employees conflict, it is important
for the manager to remain as neutral as possible. When a manager gives preference to a
favorite or senior employee or provides a solution that only works in favor of one party, they
are participating in unethical behavior. They must allow both employees to speak their piece
and then come to a
the solution that works best for both parties, as well as the business itself.

1.13 SUBJECTIVISM
Subjectivism teaches that moral judgments are nothing more than statements of a person’s
feelings or attitudes and that ethical statements do not contain factual truths about goodness
or badness. Subjectivists say that moral statements are statements about the feelings,
attitudes, and emotions that that particular person or group has about a particular issue. If a
person says something is good or bad they are telling us about the positive or negative feelings
that they have about that something. So if someone says euthanasia is wrong means they are
telling us that they disapprove of euthanasia. These statements are true if the person does
hold the appropriate attitude or have the appropriate feelings. Therefore, ethics becomes less a
matter of what is objectively true and more a matter of individual perception. If Person A
believes it is morally right to keep $10,000 instead of donating it to charity then for Person A
that is the ethical thing to do. However, if Person B believes donating the money to others
would be ethically correct then for Person B that is the correct ethical decision.
Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind and
the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ lose their
meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is ‘right’, there are no
grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone’s behavior
(assuming people are acting by what they think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw in
moral subjectivism, probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral
grounds, to at least some peoples’ actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral
issues. For example, I might hold that it is a fact that chocolate is tasty, even though I
recognize that it is not tasty to everyone. This would imply that there are subjective facts.

1.14 CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Right and wrong are determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time. Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral
Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our
own. And again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a
culture cannot be mistaken about what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and
so it denies the possibility of moral advancement (which also seems not to be true). You are
judging, or making assumptions about the food of other countries based on your norms,
values, or beliefs. Thinking of “people shouldn’t eat insects” is an example of Cultural
Relativism in India where people may not eat insects but will not apply to china.

1.15 EMOTIVISM
Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no more than expressions of approval or
disapproval. This sounds like subjectivism, but in emotivism, a moral statement doesn’t
provide information about the speaker’s feelings about the topic but expresses those feelings.
So when someone makes a moral judgment they show their feelings about something. Some
theorists also suggest that in expressing a feeling the person instructs others about how to act
towards the subject matter. example: Logical methods involve efforts to show inconsistencies
between a person’s fundamental attitudes and their particular moral beliefs. For example,
someone who says “Edward is a good person” who has previously said “Edward is a thief” and
“No thieves are good people” is guilty of inconsistency until he retracts one of his statements.
Similarly, a person who says “Lying is always wrong” might consider lies in some situations to
be morally permissible, and if examples of these situations can be given, his view can be
shown to be logically inconsistent.

1.16 DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that,
without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behavior. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and
guide people to behave in a morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection
between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God
(or the gods). This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that
an action is right or obligatory if God commands us to do it, wrong if God commands we
refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be done.
Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary that is, some action is wrong, say, for a
reason. Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because of this
reason, not simply because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong, then,
is not God’s commanding it, but the reason. For example, X kills Y. While interrogation X says
“ I didn’t do it. I acted based on God’s comment”. So, Divine Command Theory is false.

1.17 MORAL RELATIVISM

 Moral relativists say that if you look at different cultures or different periods in history
you’ll find that they have different moral rules. Therefore it makes sense to say that “good”
refers to the things that a particular group of people approves of. Moral relativists think that
that’s just fine, and dispute the idea that there are some objective and discoverable super
rules that all cultures ought to obey. They believe that relativism respects the diversity of
human societies and responds to the different circumstances surrounding human acts.
Example: Morally relativistic anti-heroes. Morally controversial decisions and heroes make for
good drama! Some popular morally relativist characters include Batman, who uses violence
and breaks the law constantly, in the name of good. We could not root for these characters
and all their morally questionable actions without believing somewhat in moral relativism.
Why people disagree with moral relativism: Many of us feel that moral rules have more to
them than the general agreement of a group of people that morality is more than a
supercharged form of etiquette. Many of us think we can be good without conforming to all the
rules of society
Moral relativism has a problem with arguing against the majority view: if most people in a
society agree with particular rules, that’s the end of the matter. Many of the improvements in
the world have come about because people opposed the prevailing ethical view - moral
relativists are forced to regard such people as behaving “badly” Moral relativism doesn’t
provide any way to deal with moral differences between societies
There are a few absolute ethical rules. But a lot of ethical rules depend on the culture
human beings, along with some other animals, are born with the knowledge of ethics. Human
beings, along with a very small set of animals, are born with a basic understanding of ethics
(possessing the ability for empathy).

1.18 INTUITIONISM
Intuitionists think that good and bad are real objective properties that can’t be broken
down into parts. Something is good because it’s good; its goodness doesn’t need justifying or
proving. Intuitionists think that goodness or badness can be detected by adults - they say that
human beings have an intuitive moral sense that enables them to detect real moral truths.
They think that basic moral truths of what is good and bad are self-evident to a person who
directs their mind towards moral issues. So good things are the things that a sensible person
realizes are good if they spend some time pondering the subject.
Don’t get confused. For the intuitionist: moral truths are not discovered by rational
argument, moral truths are not discovered by having a hunch, moral truths are not discovered
by having a feeling. It’s more a sort of moral ‘aha’ moment - a realization of the truth. This is
the ethical theory that most non-religious people think they use every day. It bases morality
on the consequences of human actions and not on the actions themselves. Example for this
theory: Moral truths that don’t depend on human thinking or feeling. “Hatred is wrong” is an
example. Hatred is wrong in itself. It would still be wrong even if everyone approved of it. It’s
an objective truth that hatred is wrong.

1.19 ETHICAL EGOISM

Right and wrong are determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest. Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism that
we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim
for at least some ‘higher’ goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally)
act to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for
the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping
others. However, egoists will help others only if this will further their interests. An ethical
egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because they want to think there will be
some personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism
(because they think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of
Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others at the expense of their self-interest is
acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of
morality i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning through which we are guided to
constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible, and
relatively commonly exhibited.
Ethical egoism contends each person must act in ways that promote his or her self interest
above the interests of all others. When a moral decision must be made, the person should
exclusively consider how the results will benefit him or her. This differs from other types of
ethical theories which give weight to how the choice will affect others as well. For example, if
you would benefit more from keeping $10,000 than you would from donating it to charity then the
morally correct decision would be to keep the money for yourself if you are an ethical egoist.

1.20 MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THEORIES

Ethical subjectivism contends that objective concepts of good and evil or right and wrong do not
exist. This leads to other theories such as moral relativism which suggests these concepts are
determined by agreement. On the other hand, ethical egoism argues that what is right and good is
the action that promotes a person’s self-interest. Likewise, what is wrong and bad goes against
that person’s self-interest. Additionally, the ethical egoist believes his or her decisions
can be objectively justified by weighing the benefits for them and the costs for them.
However, the ethical subjectivist would argue that those supposedly objective justifications are
just subjective statements of the person’s values and desires. Whether one thinks it is
ethically right to donate to charity or keep the money is not much different for the ethical
subjectivist than thinking chocolate or vanilla ice cream is the best flavor.
Although ethical egoism and ethical subjectivism differ in many respects, they are both
ethical theories. The purpose of ethical theories is to put in place a system of principles
individuals use to make moral choices and to justify those choices. By doing this, the ultimate
goal is to help people lead the best life possible for themselves and society. Ethical egoism and
ethical subjectivism approach these goals in different ways.

1.21 COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THEORIES

Although ethical egoism and ethical subjectivism’s biggest difference is that the former
claims to be objectively true while the latter says no ethical theory can be objectively true, they
do have a common theme: the importance of the individual. In both theories what is right and
wrong comes down to the beliefs, values, and interests of the person making the moral
decision. Because no one can never predict the full ramifications of their ethical decisions, it
could be argued that ethical egoists are merely basing their decisions on what they perceive to
be best for them at the time and not on objective criteria.

1.22 SUMMARY
• The meaning of ethics, morals, and values have been discussed in the chapter.
• The various theories like Normative theory, Metaethics, Applied ethics, utilitarianism,
Kantian ethics, deontology, virtue theory, contractarianism, consequentialism, situation
ethics subjectivism, cultural relativism, divine command theory, emotivism, moral
relativism, moral universalism, intuitionism, ethical egoism were discussed in detail.
1.23 KEYWORDS
• Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Ethics seeks to
resolve questions of human morality.
• Values refer to the beliefs for which a person has an enduring preference.
• Moral values are relative values that protect life and are respectful of the dual life value
of self and others.
• Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real objective moral facts or truths in
the universe. Moral statements provide factual information about those truths.
• The theory is an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.