ETHICS

-The conscience (inner voice) of Philosophy

• The word ‘Ethics’ originates from the Greek word ‘Ethos’

which means ‘custom’ or ‘habits’
The Oxford dictionary defines Ethics as:
i) “a system of moral principles by which human
actions may be judged as good or bad, right or wrong”
ii) the rules of conduct recognised in respect of a particular
class of human action e.g. the ethics of medical practice, the
ethics of law/legal practice, the ethics of teaching
profession, the ethics of business etc.
• As a branch of Philosophy, Ethics examines human conduct,
character and values.
• It is used as a general term to describe the science or theory of
morality.
• It examines the morality of human action; it studies the nature of right
and wrong and the distinction between good and evil in human
conduct. It is concerned with questions of how humans ought to act
and the search for a definition of a right action; It seeks to answer
the big questions ‘how should I live’? ‘what is the ‘good life’. Ethics
also explores the nature of Justice and of Just society and one’s
obligation to one’s self, to others and to society.
• There are broadly two approaches to addressing the issue of right and
wrong conduct in Ethics: Ethical Relativism and Ethical
Objectivism
• Ethical Relativism (also referred to as Ethical
Subjectivism) : A doctrine which maintains that
what is right or wrong depends on the particular
culture. What is right in one society may be
wrong in another society.
• Ethical Relativism states that all moral
standards are subjective and matters of taste or
opinion.
• That ‘ethics’ is merely a subjective business in
which “every man is the measure of right or
wrong for himself”
• Essentially, ethical relativism is the ethical doctrine that
nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition
of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a
particular individual, culture or historical period. That there
are no universal moral principles that are completely right,
relevant and acceptable to all societies.
• Consequently, according to this doctrine, there is no way to
justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all
societies. What one deems right or wrong is a reflection of
their personal or social bias. There are no moral absolutes.
• Relativists cite issues such as polygamy, homosexuality
human sacrifice, prostitution etc. highlighting how
attitudes to them differ from culture to culture to buttress
their position.
• Ethical Objectivism: the second view (also referred to as
Ethical absolutism or Universalism) on the other hand,
maintains that there are objective standards of right and wrong
which can be discovered and which apply universally to
everyone.
• To the advocates of this doctrine, an action is absolutely right
or absolutely wrong because it has its basis in a ‘god figure’ or
in ‘biological pre-determination’.
• ‘Biological pre-determination’ is expressed under the
evolutionary theory that social organisms develop certain
modes of living together and these modes are consistent
throughout all cultures in the world irrespective of religion or
lack of it. It is argued for example, that all cultures frown on
stealing, on killing members within the group, or on lying
• Contrary to the relativists doctrine therefore,
the objectivists argue that these are ethical
principles and values which members of any
society or culture must accept if that society is
to stay alive and if its members are to act
together with each other efficiently.
• The value for truth, honesty and sanctity for
human life to them are objective, universal,
and absolute in nature.
 Basic Questions in Ethics
Some of the typical questions discussed under Ethics
include:
✔ What is a right conduct as that which causes the
realisation of the greatest good?
✔ What actions are right, what actions are wrong in
human endeavours? In other words, How do we
determine a right conduct i.e. What makes a right
conduct right? How should I live?
✔ What is the good Life? and can we attain it?
✔ What is the best way for people to live?
✔ What is the difference between a human act and actions that
are based on instinct?
✔ What do people think is right?/ what does ‘right’ even mean?
✔ Do divine commands make acts right or is their rights based
on something else?
✔ Are there standards of rightness that are absolute or are all
such standards relative to particular cultures?
✔ How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice? etc
To answer these questions and many more under the field of
Ethics, philosophers have, over the years, put forward various
ethical principles and theories as guide to human conduct.
 Ethical Theories/Doctrines:
(A) The Ancient Greeks
• Socrates: The first major Greek philosopher; also
customarily regarded as the father of Western
Ethics.
• He asserted that the good life is the life of
Knowledge and wisdom- to him ‘there is only
one good; knowledge and one evil; ignorance.
• That people will naturally do what is good
provided that they know what is right and that evil
or bad actions are purely the result of ignorance.
• He equated knowledge and wisdom with self
awareness, (to be aware of every fact relevant to
a person’s existence) virtue and happiness
• In essence, Socrates considered self knowledge
and self awareness to be the Essential Good –
because the truly wise man i.e. (the self aware
person) will know what is right, do what is good
and therefore be happy.
• To do good and be happy; ‘know thyself’
 Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
• Held that ‘Self realisation’ (the awareness of
one’s nature and the development of one’s talents)
is the surest way to happiness – which is the
ultimate goal. All others e.g. wealth, civic life etc
are merely means to an end.
• He asserted that ‘Nature does nothing in vain’ –
so it is only when a person acts in accordance with
their nature and thereby realise their full potential
that they will do good and therefore be content in
life.
• Aristotle encouraged moderation in all things.
• He considers the extreme of moderation as
degraded and immoral. For example, Courage is
the moderate virtue between the extremes of
cowardice and recklessness.
• He held that man should not only live but live
well with conduct governed by moderate virtue.
• Virtue to Aristotle denotes the doing of the right
thing, to the right person, at the right time, to the
proper extent, in the correct fashion and for the
right reason.
 Cynicism
• As an ethical doctrine or principle Cynicism is best
exemplified by the Greek philosopher Diogenes of
Sinope who lived in the streets of Athens.
• He taught that a life lived according to Nature was
better than one that conformed to convention.
• That a simple life is essential to virtue and happiness.
As a moral teacher, Diogenes emphasised
detachment from many of those things conventionally
considered as ‘good’ e.g. wealth, luxury, power, fame
etc.
 Hedonism
From the Latin word ‘hedoni’ meaning ‘joy’
• Holds that the principal ethics is maximising pleasure and
minimising pain.
• This range from those advocating self gratification regardless
of the pain and expense to others and with no thoughts for the
future i.e. maximum pleasure here and now (Cyrenaic
hedonism) to those who believe that the most ethical pursuit
maximises pleasure and happiness for the most people.
 Epicureanism
• In contrast to Hedonism, Epicureanism holds
that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes
results in negative consequences such as pain
and fear which are to be avoided.
• The doctrine teaches that the greatest good is
to seek for ‘modest pleasure’ in order to attain
the state of tranquillity, freedom from fear
(ataraxia) and the absence of bodily pain.
 Stoicism
• The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the
greatest good was contentment, serenity and peace
of mind which can be achieved by self-mastery over
one’s desires and emotions and freedom from
material attachment.
• In particular, sex and sexual desires are to be avoided
as the greatest threat to integrity and equilibrium of
man’s mind.
• According to Epictetus, difficult problems in life,
should not be avoided but rather embraced as spiritual
exercises needed for the health of the spirit.
 Humanism
• The ethical principle that emphasises the dignity and worth
of all people and their ability to determine right and wrong
purely by appeal to universal human qualities e.g.
Rationality.
• This thinking is traced to the philosopher Thales and others
– Xenophanes (570-480BC), the historian Thucydides(C.
460-375 BC) who were instrumental in the move away
from a spiritual morality based on the supernatural and the
development of a more humanistic free thought – the view
that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and
logic and not to be influenced by emotion, authority,
tradition, or dogma
 Modern Approach To the Study of
Ethics
• The field of Ethics which is also referred as to
Moral Philosophy as explained in our earlier
lecture involves systematizing, defending and
recommending concepts of right and wrong
behavior or conduct.
• Philosophers today usually divide ethical
theories on human behavior into three (3)
general subject areas namely: (i) Metaethics
(ii) Normative Ethics and (iii) Applied Ethics
 Metaethics
• Metaethics investigates where our ethical
principles come from and what they mean.
- Are our ethical principles merely social
inventions as argued by ethical relativists?
Or do they involve more than expressions of
our individual emotions and represent
universal and eternal truths as argued by
ethical objectivists?
• Metaethics also examine the meaning of
ethical terms themselves for example what do
concepts like ‘good’ ‘right’ ‘wrong’ ‘justice’
etc mean? Are their meaning relative to a
culture, individual, time and circumstance or
are they universal, absolute and eternal?
• Simply put, Metaethics may be defined as the
study of the origin and meaning of ethical
principles and concepts.
• Metaethics involves discovering the metaphysical
status of moral values namely; whether moral
values are objective or subjective
• Proponents of the objective view hold that moral
values are objective in the sense that they exist
independent of subjective human conventions.
• That moral values are absolute or eternal in the
sense they never change and also that they are
universal insofar as they apply to all rational
creatures around the world throughout time.
• Plato, a forerunner of moral objectivism drew his
inspiration from mathematical numbers and
relations e.g. 1+1 =2 which to him is a timeless
concept which never change and apply
everywhere in the universe. Humans do not
invent numbers and humans cannot alter them.
• Just like universal character of mathematics, moral
values also are absolute and universal truths.
Human did not invent them, therefore human
cannot change them.
• Other moral objectivist such as the medieval philosopher
William of Ockham, hold that morality is divine commands
issuing from God’s will.
• This view called Theological Voluntarism or the Divine
Command theory was inspired by the notion of an all powerful
God who knows and is in control of everything.
• God simply wills things and they come into existence. He
wills the physical world into existence, He wills human life
into existence and He similarly wills moral values into
existence.
• Expression of such divine moral wills in the Christian doctrine
is found in the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of which
is the Maqasid Sharia in the Islamic moral doctrine.
• Proponents of the subjective view of morality
deny the objective status of moral values.
• While not rejecting moral values themselves,
the subjectivists deny that moral values are
divine commands in the mind of God.
• Moral values they argue, are strictly human
inventions. This position is referred to as
moral relativism.
• Moral relativism itself is further broken into two:
Individual Relativism and Cultural Relativism
• Individual Relativism holds that individual people
create their own moral standards.
• Friedrich Nietzsche, a leading moral relativist for
example, argued that the superhuman creates his
or her own morality distinct from and in reaction
to the slave-like value system of the masses.
• Cultural Relativism on the other hand maintains that
morality is grounded in the approval of one’s society – and
not simply in the preferences of individual people. The
Greek Philosopher Sextus Empiricus and more recently
Michael Montaigne and William Graham Summer are the
leading proponents of moral relativism.

• These thinkers deny the absolute and universal nature of

morality and hold instead, that moral values in fact change
from society to society through out time and throughout the
world. They cite examples of values that differ from one
culture to the other such as attitudes to polygamy,
homosexuality and human sacrifice.
 Normative Ethics:

• While Metaethics examines the theoretical foundation of ethics by

focusing on the origin and meaning of moral principles and
concepts, Normative Ethics undertakes a practical task of arriving
at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.
• It examines the standards for the rightness or wrongness of actions.
• This involves articulating the good habits that we should acquire,
the duties that we should follow or the consequences of our
behavior on others. Normative ethics in other words, involves the
specification of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of morally acceptable
behavior. Hence, it is also called prescriptive ethics because it
seeks to ‘prescribe’ the moral context of what acceptable behavior
is.
• The domain of Normative ethics can be explained essentially, as
the search for an ideal ‘litmus test’ of proper behavior.
 Examples of normative principles:
• The Golden Rule: This rule states that ‘we should do
to others what we would want them to do to us’ - I do
not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong
for me to steal her car.
• It would be wrong for me to lie, harass, victimize,
assault or kill others because I would not want them to
met out similar actions on me.
• The ‘Golden Rule’ is a classical example of a
Normative theory that establishes a single principle
against which we judge the morality of all actions.
• Other Normative theories focus on a set of
foundational principles or a set of good character
traits.
• The Key assumption in normative ethics is that
there is only one ultimate criterion of moral
conduct whether it is a single rule or a set of
principles.
• The other set of principles of Normative ethics
are: Virtue Theories, Duty Theories and the
Consequentialist theories
 Virtue Ethics

• Virtue Ethics emphasizes developing good habits

of character.
• To the Virtue theorists, morality is not just merely
learning moral rules and precepts such as ‘don’t
kill’ or ‘don’t steal’ and striving to live up to such
rules/precepts in our actions, rather, morality
consist in developing virtuous character traits i.e.
being inherently good in and by ourselves
(being inherently good people).
• An example of good habit of character worthy of
developing is benevolence i.e. being simply good
towards others without the expectation of any
reward.
• Once I’ve acquired benevolence for example, I
will then habitually act in a benevolent manner.
• Virtue theory has been described as one of the
oldest normative traditions in Western philosophy
tracing its roots in ancient Greek civilization.
• Plato the Greek philosopher in particular,
emphasized four virtues of wisdom, courage,
temperance and justice which later became known
as the cardinal virtues. Other such virtues are
fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper and
sincerity.
• In addition to advocating good habits of character,
Virtue theorists hold that we should avoid
acquiring bad character traits (or vices) such as
cowardice, insensibility, injustice and vanity.
• Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since
virtuous character traits are developed in one’s
youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for
instilling virtues in the young.
• Aristotle, another Greek Philosopher argued that
virtues are good habits that we acquire which
regulate our emotions. For example, in response to
my natural feelings of fear, I should develop the
virtue of courage which allows me to be firm
when facing danger.
• Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean
between more extreme character traits; a moral
precept that has come to be known as the Golden
Mean Principle
• For example, Courage is the mean between the
two extreme character traits of cowardice and
rashness. If I do not have enough courage, I
develop the disposition of cowardice which is a
vice (evil). If I have too much of courage, I
develop the disposition of rashness which is also a
vice.
• Aristotle argued that it is not an easy task to find the perfect
Golden Mean between extreme character traits and that we
need assistance from our reason to do that.
• After Aristotle, the medieval theologians added another list
of three Christian virtues known as the theological virtues .
These are: faith, hope and charity.
• After a period of decline in the 19th c. virtue theory with its
emphasis on virtuous character traits (rather than simply
relying on rules and actions) regained special attention from
writings of philosophers like Alasdaire MacIntyre who
defended the central role of virtues in moral theory and
argued that virtues are grounded in and emerge from within
social traditions
 Duty Theories
• While Virtue Theories base morality on imbibing good
habits of character i.e. simply being good people, Duty
Theories base morality on specific, foundational principle
of obligation i.e. carrying out certain duties we owe to
others and to ourselves regardless of the consequences.
• An action is considered morally right or wrong based on our
duty or obligation to obey certain rules rather than the
consideration of the consequences of those actions.
• These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the
Greek word deon (meaning ‘duty’) in view of the
foundational nature of our duty or obligation
• The deontologists posit that the process of performing an
action is more important than the outcome of the action.
• The moral duty theory is commonly seen in
the command theory law and military service
where the decisions of the superior officers are
the duty of their inferiors to obey - you often
hear statements like “obey the last order” or
“obey before complain” regardless of the
consequences.
• The deontologists are also sometimes called
non-consequentialists since these principles
are obligatory, irrespective of the
consequences that might follow from our
actions.
• For example, we have a duty to care for our
children and that it is wrong not to carry out
that duty even if it results in some great
benefits such as financial savings.
 There are four (4) central duty theories.
• The first central duty theory is that championed by the
17th century German Philosopher Samuel Pufendorf
who classified dozens of duties under three headings:
duties to God, duties to oneself and duties to others.
• Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that
there are two kinds:
I. A theoretical duty to know the existence and nature
of God and;
II. A practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly
worship God.
• Concerning our duties to oneself, he argued
that these are also of two types:
I. Duties of the soul, which involve developing
one’s skills and talents, and;
II. Duties of the body, which involves not
harming our bodies as we might through
drunkenness and killing oneself.
• Concerning our duties towards others,
Pufendorf divides these between absolute
duties which are universally binding on people
and conditional duties which are the result of
contracts between people.
• Absolute duties are of three sorts:
I. Avoid wronging others
II. Treat people as equal
III. Promote the good of others
• Conditional duties involve various types of
agreements, the principal one of which is the
duty to keep one’s promise.
The second central duty-based approach to
ethics is the rights theory.
A “right” is explained as a justified claim
against another person’s behavior- such as my
right to not be harmed by you (and your duty
not harm me)
• This is called the correlativity of rights and
duties.
• John Locke, a British philosopher is considered
as one of the most influential early 17 th century
rights theorists.
• He argued that the laws of nature mandate that we
should not harm anyone’s life, health, liberty or
possession.
• Locke called these our natural rights given to us
by God.
• Following Locke, the United States
Declaration of Independence authored by
Thomas Jefferson recognizes three
foundational rights: the right to life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness.
• Jefferson and other rights theorists maintained
that we deduce other more specific rights from
these including the rights of property,
movement, speech, and religious expression.
• Generally, moral ethicists have identified four
features traditionally associated with moral rights:
First; rights are natural in so far as they are not invented
or created by governments.
Second; rights are universal in so far as they do not
change from country to country.
Third; rights are equal in the sense that they are the same
for all people irrespective of gender, race or handicap.
Fourth; they are inalienable, which means that I cannot
hand over my rights to another person such as selling
myself to slavery.
 The third central duty- based theory is that by
Immanuel Kant which emphasizes a single
principle of duty.
• Influenced by Pufendorf Kant agreed that we
have moral duties to oneself and to others such as
developing one’s talents and keeping our
promises to others.
• However, Kant argued that there is a more
foundational principle of duty that he calls the
categorical imperative.
• A Categorical imperative simply mandates an action , irrespective
of one’s personal desires such as “ you ought to do that”.
• Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative one
of which is: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an
end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and
never use them as mere instruments. Donating for charity for
example is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent
value of that person. By contrast, we treat someone as a means to
an end when ever we treat that person as a tool for achieving
something.
• To that extent, even suicide is morally wrong since I would be
treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Moral
choices must be based on respect for the human person.
• Essentially, the Categorical Imperative (also called Kantianism)
refer to moral commands you must follow regardless of your
desires or the consequences.
 The fourth and more recent duty-based theory is
the one put forward by the British Philosopher
W.D Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties.
• Ross gives a list of seven duties which he believes
reflect our actual moral convictions: These are:
i. Fidelity: the duty to keep promise
ii. Reparation: the duty to compensate others when
we harm them.
iii. Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us.
 iv Justice: the duty to recognize merit.
v. Beneficence: the duty to improve the condition
of others.
Vi Self improvement: the duty to improve our
virtue and intelligence
Vii Nonmaleficence: the duty not injure others.
• Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must
choose between two conflicting duties. For example,
suppose I borrow my neighbor’s gun and promise to return
it when he asks for it. One day in a fit of anger, my neighbor
pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take
vengeance on some one. On the one hand, the duty of
fidelity obligates me to return the gun, on the other, the duty
of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and
thus not to return the gun. According to Ross, I will
intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty and
which is my prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of
nonmaleficence emergences as my actual duty and that I
should not return the gun
 The Consequentialist Theories
• According to consequentialism, a correct moral action is
determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences
of that action.
• Thus, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action
are more favorable than unfavorable.
• Consequentilist normative principles require that we first tally both
the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then
determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total
bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the
action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then
the action is morally improper.
• Consequentilist theories are sometimes called teleological theories,
from the Greek word teleos which means ‘end’, since the end
result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality.
• Performing or not performing an action should be
based solely on the outcome of that action.
• Consider choices involved in the following
actions:
✔ Obeying traffic laws
✔ Cheating in an exams
The overall positive consequences of these actions
are the sole determinants of their morality or
otherwise.
• Consequentilist theories became popular in
the 18th century by philosophers who wanted a
quick way to morally assess an action by
appealing to experience rather than by
appealing to long lists of questionable duties.
• The most attractive feature of
consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly
observable consequences of actions.
 Categories of consequentialism:
• Three subdivisions of conequentialism have emerged:
Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences
of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to
the agent performing the action.
• That whatever satisfies the individual desires, or needs is
right and that anything which causes the individual to
inconvenience himself or act against his own selfish interest
is wrong. Institutions like religion, marriage and the rule of
law are cited as being against the interest of the individual.
• The moral philosopher John Casper Schmidt is a leading
thinker of Ethical Egoism.
Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable than
unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
• The similitude of ethical altruism is in the candle
which burns itself to illuminate its surrounding.
Similarly, St August the Christian theologian, was
quoted to have said “live for others”
Utilitarianism: An action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable than
unfavorable to everyone i.e. providing the greatest
good to the greatest number of people.
• The morally correct action to take is that
which brings happiness to the majority -the
justification for the end-result of any action is
the happiness of the majority.
• The right action is dependent on the best
outcome with the principle of utility in view.
• The English Philosopher, John Stuart Mills is a
leading thinker of Utilitarianism.
• All three of these theories focus on the
consequences of actions for different groups.
But like all normative theories, the above three
theories are rivals to each other. They also
yield different conclusions.
 Applied Ethics
• Applied Ethics is the branch of ethics which consists
of the examination and analysis of specific
controversial issues such as abortion, infanticide,
animal rights, homosexuality, capital punishment,
environmental concerns such as pollution control etc.
• Controversial issues discussed by ethicists under
Applied Ethics today are classified under Biomedical
issues, Business ethics, environmental ethics, sexual
morality, and social morality
• Applied ethics uses the conceptual tools of Metaethics
and Normative ethics in trying to resolve these
controversial issues.
• Generally, for an issue to be considered an
applied ethical issue, it must meet two criteria:
• First; the issue needs to be controversial in the
sense that there are significant groups of people
both for and against the issue at hand and;
• Second; the issue at hand must be distinctively
moral rather than social i.e. they must concern
more universally obligatory practices such as our
duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to
individual societies.
• In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues
should be easy. With the issue of abortion for example,
we would simply determine its morality by consulting
our normative principle of choice such as act-
utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces greater
benefit than disbenifit, then according to act-
utilitatrianism, it would be morally acceptable to
commit abortion.
• Unfortunately the presence of many rival normative
principles from which to choose, many of which yield
opposite conclusion makes the choice a difficult one.
• Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics
between conflicting theories prevent us from
using a single decisive procedure for
determining the morality of specific issues.
• The usual solution today to this stalemate is to
consult several normative principles on a
given issue and see where the weight of
evidence lies.
Normative Principles in Applied
Ethics
• The criteria in selecting the principles are:
i) They must not be too narrowly focused such
as act-egoism that might focus only on an
action’s short term benefit and;
ii) the principles must also be seen as having
merit by people on both sides of applied
ethical issue.
The following principles are most commonly
appealed to, in applied ethical discussions:
• Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to
which an action produces beneficial consequences
for the individual in question.
• Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which
an action produces beneficial consequences on the
society.
• Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
• Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursing
their best interest when they cannot do so
themselves.
• Principle of harm: do not harm others
• Principle of honesty: do not deceive others
• Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law
• Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s
freedom over his/her actions or physical body
• Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right
to due process, fair compensation for harm done,
and fair distribution of benefits.
• Rights: acknowledge a person’s right to life,
information, privacy, free expression and safety.
• The above principles represent a spectrum of
traditional normative principles and derived from both
consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first
two principles, personal benefit and social benefit are
consequentialist since they appeal to the consequences
of an action as it affects the individual or the society.
The remaining principles are duty-based. The principle
of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and
lawfulness are based on duties we have towards others.
The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various
rights are based on moral rights.
• For further reading see Fieser J. (2000),
Metaethics, Normative Ethics and Applied
Ethics: Historical and Contemporary
Readings; Philosophy Series, Wadsworth/
Thomson Learning, ISBN 05344573843,
9780534573843
 AESTHETICS
• This branch of philosophy deals with the nature and appreciation
of art, beauty (or its opposite, ugliness) and good taste. It has
also been defined as critical reflection on art, culture and nature.
It studies our thoughts, attitudes and feelings when we see, hear
or read something beautiful.
• Something beautiful may be work of art such as painting,
symphony, poem or it may be sun set or other natural
phenomenon.
• In addition, aesthetics investigates the experience of engaging in
such activities as painting, dancing, acting and playing.
• Along with Ethics, aesthetics is a part of axiology which is the
study of values and value judgment.
• Some basic Questions in Aesthetics:
• What is art?
• What is beauty?
• Is there a standard taste?
• Is art meaningful? If so what does it mean?
• What is good art?
• Is art for the purpose of an end or is it ‘art for arts
sake” What connects us to art?
• How does art affect us?
• Is some art unethical? can art corrupt or elevate
society?.
• For Instance, people may see a piece of arts
work and sometimes find no meaning or
significance in it. However, the trained eyes
see the artist emotions, taste and sense in
drawings, paintings, sculpture because through
arts, the artist can express their feelings about
a subject
 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
• Examines the relationship between Philosophy and politics:
Basics question in the relationship between Philosophy and
politics:
• Are political institutions and their exercise of power justified?
• What is justice?
• Is there a “proper” role and scope of government?
• Is democracy the best form of governance?
• Is governance ethically Justified?
• Should a state be allowed to promote the norms and values of a
certain moral and religious doctrine?
• Are states allowed to go to war ?
• Do states have duties towards inhabitants of other states?
 Reflection point:
• Ethics has been referred to as the ‘conscience of Philosophy’. Give
specific examples of how ethics can serve as the conscience (inner
voice) in your course of study and in the practice of your intended
profession:
✔ What ethical issues do you have to deal with in the course of the
production (Research), acquisition and application of Knowledge in
your subject of study?
✔ How are issues relating to the right use (or misuse) of information,
knowledge, skills and competences handled in your intended
profession?
✔ What should be the role ethics in arts (music, painting, poetry, acting
etc.)?
✔ What should be the role of ethics and morality in the conduct of affairs
between nations on one hand and between nations and other non-state
multi-lateral institutions and organisations on the other?