Professional Ethics

PHR500
Prof. G. Menelik
Today’s Topics

What Is Ethics?
&
Cultural Relativism

Drawing by David Shrigley

 A World of Ethics

Our values are reflected in our attitude toward ourselves,

other individuals, society and social groups, and the world
around us.

Since our values are manifested in our actions, so in a sense

there is no escape from ethics. Even if we say “To heck
with ethics!” or claim to be nihilists we are expressing a
specific moral attitude toward careful deliberation about
values.

Nihilism: the claim that nothing has any value or purpose.

 The Problem of Definition

Two basic elements of ethics:

(1) The nature of morality or what is good.
(2) How we ought to live our lives.

• If we knew something about the former, we might

know something about the latter.

• However there are many accounts of morality and they

often clash with each other.
 The Problem of Definition

• Rachel aims to describe a “minimum conception of

morality” or some basic features that all ethical theories
possess.

• He does this through three dramatic examples that (1)

expose some moral principles that shape our everyday
ethical thought and (2) show something of the nature of
ethical reasoning.
 First Example: Baby Theresa

• Born anencephalic: the cerebrum and the cerebellum

are missing, as is the top of the skull.

• In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are

detected during pregnancy and aborted. Of those not
aborted, half are still born. About 350 each year are
born alive, and they usually die within days. (Rachels,
page 2)
Picture 1: Anencephalic Fetus

Photograph: Ed Uthman, MD
Picture 2: Anencephalic Fetus

Photograph: Ed Uthman, MD
First Example: Baby Theresa

What was the right thing to do in the

case of Baby Theresa?
 Logical Reasoning: The Basics

• Ethics is an activity that requires critical

thinking and rational arguments.

• In other words, we need to examine what

reasons can be given in support of an ethical
position.

• When we reason we make a conscious effort

to show how one thought provides support for
another.
 Logical Reasoning: The Basics

Example
1. If animals feel pain, then we should not hurt
them.
2. Animals feel pain.
3. Therefore, we should not hurt them.

• In this simple example the first two statements

are the premises that provide justification for the
last statement which is the conclusion.
 Logical Reasoning: The Basics

Two terms of evaluation:

Valid Argument: if the premises are true, then it is

impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Sound Argument: a valid argument that contains

only true premises.
 Valid Argument

1.If the moon is made of cheese, cows can fly.

2. The moon is made of cheese.
3. Hence, cows can fly.

Note the basic form of this argument:

1. If A, then B.
2. A.
3. Hence, B.
 Sound Argument

1. If we are in Corpus Christi, then we are in

Texas.
2. We are in Corpus Christi.
3. Hence, we are in Texas.

Note: the form of this argument is exactly the same as

the previous argument. The only difference is that these
premises are true and so the argument is sound.
 Baby Theresa:
The Benefits Argument
1. If we can benefit someone, without harming
anyone else, we ought to do so.

2. Transplanting the organs would benefit

other children without harming Baby Theresa.

3. Therefore, we ought to transplant her organs.

The Argument That We Should Not
Use People As Means

1. It is wrong to use people as a means to other people’s

ends.

2. If we harvest Theresa's organs, we would be using

her
as a means to benefit other children.

3. Therefore, we should not harvest Theresa's organs.

 Rachel’s Assessment

• The prohibition against killing is strong, but most

people do not think it absolute.

• Baby Theresa is (1) going to die soon, (2) not

conscious, and (3) her organs could help save several
other children.

• We might even regard Baby Theresa as “born dead”.

Note: Rachel's claim about changes to the concept of
"death" p.5.
 Third Example: Tracy Latimer

Facts: Tracy Latimer, 12-year-old victim of cerebral

palsy from Canada, was killed by her father in 1993.

• She had the mental life of a 3-month old baby and was
in constant, severe pain. Mrs. Latimer supported her
husband.

• Mr. Latimer was charged and found guilty of murder.

He served time and has since been paroled.
 The Slippery Slope Argument

1. If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will

have stepped onto a “slippery slope” down
which we will inevitably slide.
2. In the end all life will be held cheap.
3. If all life will be held cheap, Tracy should not
have been killed.
4. Hence, Tracy should not have been killed.
 Rachel’s Question

• We might agree with this ethical principle: it is

wrong to treat some people worse than others
when there are no relevant differences
between them that would justify it.

Question: was this the case with Tracy?

Robert Latimer in his own words

“People are
saying this is a
handicap issue,
but they are
wrong. This is a
torture issue. This
is about
mutilation and
torture for Tracy.”
 Reason and Impartiality

• Rachel’s holds that two basic points about

ethics emerge from a consideration of these
examples.

1. Our feelings are important, but they must be

guided by reason.

2. Ethics includes the idea of impartiality.

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
 How Different Cultures Have
Different Moral Codes

Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient

term for socially approved habits.
Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (1934)

• Consider the example from Herodotus (c. 484-425 BC)

in his History. There he describes how the ancient Greeks
burned but the Callatians ate the bodies of their dead
fathers.
 Five Features of
Cultural Relativism
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. (a) The "good" is determined by society; (b) an act is
"right" if it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society
in which it is performed, and "wrong" if it is forbidden
by those ideals.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge
one society’s code as better than an other’s.
4. The moral code of our society has no special status.
5. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance.
The Cultural Differences Argument

1.The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead.

2. The Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
3. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right
nor objectively wrong: it is merely a matter of opinion
from culture to culture.

Question: Is this a sound argument?

 Generalized Cultural Differences
Argument

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.

2. If different cultures have different moral codes, then
whether it is right for an individual to act in a certain
way depends entirely on the society to which he or she
belongs.
3. Therefore, whether it is right for an individual to act in
a certain way depends entirely on the society to which
he or she belongs.
(see Rachels p.18)
 Consider : A Related Argument

1. Some people think that earth is flat.

2. Some people think the earth is round.
3. If there is disagreement concerning some matter of fact,
there is no objective truth.
4. Hence, there is no objective truth whether the earth is
round or flat.

Objection: The Cultural Differences Argument tries to derive a

substantive conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that
people disagree about it. But this is impossible. (Rachels p. 18)
 What If…..
Cultural Relativism Were True?

1. We could no longer say that the customs of

other societies are morally inferior/superior
to our own.
 What If…..
Cultural Relativism Were True?

2. We could decide whether our actions are

right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our society.
 What If…..
Cultural Relativism Were True?

3. The idea of moral

progress is called
into doubt.
How Much Do Cultures Disagree?

• Reconsider the case of eating the dead. Perhaps this is

done protect the spirit of the deceased.
• Indeed compare the practice to the Catholic Eucharist or
Holy Communion.
• Has there ever been a society that allows for murder?
• Has there ever been a society that allows for unlimited
lying?
 Reason, Impartiality, and
Cultural Relativism

1. Those who defend cultural practices typically give

reasons. (Consider the case of female genital mutilation.)

2. Cultural relativism violates the fundamental norm of

impartiality by giving preferences to individual cultural
groups.