Anthropology Power Point

Chapter 2
Approachs to Ethics
Ethics can be defined as:
• The study of standards of behavior which promote
human welfare.
• About how we behave, about the standards we hold
ourselves to…
• About how we treat each other, even those we do not
know
Monday, May 13, 2024
Chapter 2
Approachs to Ethics
• In general, the term ethics refers to two things
– First, ethics refers to well-founded/well-
substantiated/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.

Chapter 2
Approachs to Ethics
─ Secondly, ethics refers to the study and

development of one's ethical standards.
Meaning, Ethics is the philosophical
study of morality (moral philosophy).
• Morality refers to belief concerning
right and wrong, good and bad –
belief that can include judgment,
values, rules, principles and theories.
Chapter 2
Confusing Terms in Moral Philosophy
• The terms Moral and ethical (and immoral and

unethical) are interchangeably used in ordinary
language.
• Moral mean what is good or right; immoral
means what is bad or wrong
• Amoral means having no moral sense, or being
indifferent to right and wrong
• Non-moral means; out of the realm of morality
altogether.
Chapter 2
How ethics are formed?

Chapter 2
Theories of Ethics
The three major theories of ethics are:
 Meta-ethics
 Applied ethics
 Normative ethics
Meta-ethics: is the study about the origin and
meaning of the concept of ethics.
Applied ethics: Consists of the analysis of specific,
controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal
rights, and the like.
Normative ethics: involves arriving at moral standards
that regulate right and wrong conduct. (our focus in
Chapter 2
Meta-ethics
• Meta-ethics is concerned with questions about the
following:
─ Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral
discourse? Is the function of moral discourse to state
facts, or does it have some other non-fact-stating role?
─ Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so,
what are they like? Are they identical or reducible to
some other type of fact (or property) or are they
irreducible and sui generis?
─ Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as
moral knowledge? How can we know whether our moral
judgements are true or false? How can we ever justify
our claims to moral knowledge?
─ Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in
the experience of an agent making a moral judgement?
Do they appear to be 'out there' in the world?
Chapter 2
Meta-ethics
• Generally, Meta-ethics:
 Examines the meaning of moral terms and
concepts and the relationships between these
concepts.
 Explores where moral values, such as
‘personhood’ and ‘autonomy’, come from.
 Considers the difference between moral values and
other kinds of values.
 Examines the way in which moral claims are
justified.
Chapter 2
Meta-ethics
• Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following

kind:
 What do we mean by the claim, ‘life is sacred’?
 Are moral claims a matter of personal view,
religious belief or social standard, or, are they
objective in some sense?
 If they are objective, what make them so?
 Is there a link between human psychology and the
moral claims that humans make?
Chapter 2
Definition of normative Ethics
Normative Ethics
• Is one of the three branches of ethics
• It works towards developing moral standards
against which we can judge whether a given
action is right or wrong
• It also search for an ideal litmus test of proper
behavior
• It helps us in identifying the best moral standard
for whatever effort we make in our life to
compare against it
2. Classification of Normative Ethics
Normative Ethics
Ethics of Ethics of
Conducts Character
Teleologism Deontologism Aristotleanism
Ethical
Utilitarianis Kantianism
Egoism
m
11
Chapter 2
Classification of normative Ethics
• Normative ethics is classified into two branches as
study of or as search for standard against which
human behavior is going to be judged. These are:
1. Ethics of Conducts
2. Ethics of Character
• Under Ethics of conducts, we have two classes of
theories: Teleologism and Deontologism.
• Even under Teleologism, we have two
classifications:
Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism.
Chapter 2
1. Ethics of conduct
• Here the basic idea is that, the judgment may be

based purely on
─ The nature of the action that is Deontologism
or
─ The consequences of the actions that is Teleologism
(consequentialist).

Chapter 2
• Even basing on consequences of actions,

rightness or wrongness can be classified into
two in terms of whose consequence is that?
─ Ethical egoists think that so long as my action
resulted in a favorable consequence to me, it may be
enough.
─ Utilitarianists, however, say that rightness of a
certain action depends on the favorable consequence
that the action brings not to the individual agent who
is taking the action but to the greatest number of
people.
Chapter 2
• The other classification of ethics based on

Deontologism is kantianism.
─ Kant, a German philosopher in ethics, said that
actions should not be called as right or wrong
depending on their consequence but rather based on
reasons. And, actions can be considered as right or
wrong by themselves not by their consequences.

Chapter 2
I. Teleology (Consequencialist)
• The word teleology came from the Greek

word ‘telos’ meaning 'goal’ .
• It is called end-based thinking. End in this means or
implies the goal. Goal based thinking.
• The issue of teleology is about how shall we think when
we have to determine the right behaviors of ours
whenever we are evolved in ethical dilemmas ( ግራ
መጋባት).
• This particular perspective says no matter what you do or
what you think or what matters is the end or the
consequences of that action.
Chapter 2
• So, no matter what you do if the consequence or the end

of that particular means is right, the means would be
right.(ዉጤቱ ጥሩ ከሆነ ድርጊቱ ምንም ብሆን ምን ጥሩ ነዉ
ማለት ነዉ)
• This particular theory makes the consequences of
actions to be the criterion to test their rightness of that
particular action.
• Whether a certain action is right or wrong, entirely
depend on whether the consequence of the action taken
is going to be good or bad.

Chapter 2
•You may have a goal of making:

─ your self happy or
─ somebody else happy;
What matters is whether you can make the subject

happy or not.
Lets see the concept of teleology and deontology
side by side to clarify the concept.
Chapter 2
Teleology Vs Deontology
Teleology Deontology
- The right or wrong nature of certain action - The right or wrong nature of certain action
is out-come based is Universal law or binding rule based
- Deals with issues case by case (what works - treat things all times, all places, & all
now may not work later or what works here my people with out variation.(The law is
not work there) universal and applies in the same manner)
- Follows hypothetical or theoretical or non - Categorical imperatives ( There are

practical imperatives principles or rules which need action as they
are right or good).
- Greatest Happiness principle (whatever the Adherence to the identified rigid rule or
action is, it is good or right if it causes greatest maxims or principles (for the action to be
happiness) right or wrong , good or bad)
The end justifies the means The rightness goodness is in the actions
intrinsic nature.
Chapter 2
Classification of Teleology
• Teleology is family of ethical theories not one
single theory.
• Under teleology, there are two particular
classifications:
1. Egoistic Hedonism that is the sum of Egoism
and Hedonism.
2. Utilitarianism or Social Hedonism.
• The basic difference of the two is not that, one is
end based and the other is means based but rather
both are end based.
Chapter 2
- The difference is whose is that end (ዉጤቱ ለማን ጠቀመ)?

- The end of the agent who is said to be engaged in the
action (ድርጊት አድራጊዉን ነዉ?) or
- The end of other parties than the agents who is responsible
for the action (ሌሎች ከ አዲራጊዉ ዉጭ ያሉ ሰዎችን)
- For example, greatest happiness is the goal for teleologism.
Whose happiness is that?
- For Egoist Hedonism, the greatest happiness is for one
self (the agent).
- The agent him/her self or the person who engage in the
action wants the greatest happiness for him/her self.
- For utilitarianism (social hedonism),the greatest
happiness is for the largest number of people except the
agent.
Chapter 2
ምሳሌ:
- ሥድስት ሰዎች ፤ አምስት ሰዉ ብቻ መሸከም በምትችል ጀልባ ተሳፍሮ
ባህር ለመሻገር ስሞክሩ ባህር መሓል ላይ ጀልባዋ ከአቅመዋ በላይ
ስለጫነች ለመስመጥ ደረሰች፡፡ ጀልባዋ ከሰመጠች ሥድሰቱም
ተሳፋሪዎች ያልቃሉ፡፡
ያላቸዉ ምርጫ
- ስለዚህ አምስቱ ተባብሮ አንዱን ወደ ባህር ከወረወሩ በኃላ ጀልባዋ
ተረጋግታ ባህሩን መሻገር ቻሉ፡፡ (this is egoistic hedonism)
- ስድስታችንም ከምናልቅ ብሎ አንዱ ራሱን ወደ ባህር ወረወረ እና
የተቀሩት አምስቱ በሰላም ባህሩን ተሻገሩ፡፡ (Utilitarianism or
Social hedonism)

Chapter 2
Egoistic Hedonism
Egoistic Hedonism,
• This term is made up of two terminologies. One is
Hedonism.
• Hedonism Means pleasure is the highest goal. Production
of pleasure is the criterion of right.
• Pleasure, or happiness is the highest goal.
• But, for whom is that pleasure:
─ Would I gain certain pleasure? or
─ Would this result in the pleasure for the greatest
number of people other than me?.
Chapter 2
Egoistic Hedonism
 The theory implies that we ought to be selfish.
 To put it more gently, we ought to be self-
interested.
 Calling the theory “ethical” does not suggest that
there might be a decent way to
be selfish; it just means that ethical egoism is a
theory that advocates egoism as a moral rule.
 Egoism- refers overly concerned with oneself .
 We all always seek to maximize our own self-
interest
 If one cannot do an act, one has no obligation to
do that act (ought to implies can).
Chapter 2
• In egoistic hedonism, the action that was going to be

against one’s own personal interest is always going to be
wrong.
• The action actually is right is going to be in the best
interest of that one person’s interest.
 Finally, the theorists in the field think that this is also one
possible way of determining the standard for human
behavior regarding what is right or wrong.
 Hedonism therefore is a thinking which
makes pleasure the highest goal and
whenever actions you take must produce
the greatest pleasure in this case.
Chapter 2
• The term Egoism came from a Greek word “ego”

meaning "I”. Literally "I-ism”.
• Some people call sometimes this selfishness but the
issue of selfishness is quite different from egoism.
Selfishness is rather the negative connotation about our
approach to determine what is right and wrong.
 Egoistic hedonism therefore is, pursuit and
production of one's own pleasure is the highest
good and criterion of right action.

Chapter 2
• Here the point is that no one does something which is

against his/her interest.
• Think of the different actions you take every day, every
hour, every minutes in your life so far.
• How many times you took actions which is against your
own interest? Why?
- For example: Why you marry the one you selected not any
body else? Why you bear children? Is that for the sake of
your self or the children themselves?
 This all is due to the love for one self.
Chapter 2
• If you do not want very bad things to be done to you, you

do not do such kinds of things on others.
• Then, out of love for oneself would be able to love others.
But he who does not care about himself can’t care about
another person
• Therefore, behind every person’s action there is always
personal interest. You do it for your own self to protect
your interest. (e.g ሰደቃ ስንሰጥ ለምነሰጠዉ ሰዉ ለመጥቀም
ሳይሆን ወይ ፈጣሪ ዘንድ እንድቆጠርልን አሊያም ስለምያስደስተን
ነዉ)
• The fact that other people benefit from that is going to be
the by product of your action.
Chapter 2
Utilitarianism (Social hedonism)
• The second classification or variation of teleology
is that of Social Hedonism.
• It focuses on bringing the greatest happiness for
the most people. Hedonism is necessary here,
but Not self pleasure rather for the greatest
number of people.
• Under this particular classification of teleology, the
principle of utility or usefulness is there.
• Too what extent is my action resulted in useful
result to the greatest number of people.
• This particular theory argues that we ought to act to
promote the greatest balance of good over evil.
Chapter 2
• Utilitarianism – claims that act is right or wrong

according to the utility or value of its consequences.
How much utility does an action produced?
• However, we said that there is no any single action
that always results in better value or better utility.
• At different times, different places or for different
people, the same action may mean different thing in
terms of the resultant utility or value.

Chapter 2
Classical utilitarianism
For Epicurus (342–270 BCE), who stated that
“pleasure is the goal that nature has ordained for us; it
is also the standard by which we judge everything
good.”
According to this view, rightness and wrongness are
determined by pleasure or pain that something
produces.
An act that produces more pleasure than pain has
greater value than an act that produces more pain
than pleasure.
Chapter 2
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
• Jeremy Bentham: Quantity over Quality
• There are two main features of utilitarianism, both
of which Bentham articulated:
i. The consequentialist principle (or its
teleological aspect): states that the rightness
or wrongness of an act is determined by the
goodness or badness of the results that flow
from it. It is the end, not the means that
counts; the end justifies the means.
ii. The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect):
states that the only thing that is good in itself
is some specific type of state (for example,
pleasure, happiness, welfare).
Chapter 2
 Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the

sole good and pain as the only evil.
 An act is right if it either brings about more
pleasure than pain or prevents pain, and an act is
wrong if it either brings about more pain than
pleasure or prevents pleasure from occurring.
 Bentham invented a scheme for measuring
pleasure and pain that he called the hedonic
calculus:

Chapter 2
 The quantitative score for any pleasure or pain

experience according to Bentham is obtained by
summing the seven aspects of a pleasurable or
painful experience which are:
─ its intensity,
─ duration,
─ certainty,
─ nearness,
─ fruitfulness,
─ purity, and
─ extent.
Chapter 2
– John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity
 His version of the theory is often called eudaimonistic
utilitarianism (from the Greek eudaimonia, meaning
“happiness”).
 He defines happiness in terms of certain types of higher-order
pleasures or satisfactions such as intellectual, aesthetic, and
social enjoyments, as well as in terms of minimal suffering.
 For Mill, there are two types of pleasures. The lower, or
elementary, include eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and
sensuous titillation.
 The higher include high culture, scientific knowledge,
intellectuality, and creativity. Although the lower pleasures
are more intensely gratifying, they also lead to pain when
overindulged in.
 The higher pleasures tend to be more long term, continuous,
and gradual.
Chapter 2
– John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity

 According to Mill, the higher or more refined
pleasures are superior to the lower ones.
 Mill also argued that it is better to be human
being dissatisfied than pig satisfied or being
Socrates unsatisfied is better than fool satisfied.
 Mill is clearly pushing the boundaries of the
concept of “pleasure” by emphasizing higher
qualities such as knowledge, intelligence,
freedom, friendship, love, and health.
Chapter 2
Example
– There is one experianced special Doctor in
one room and 10 patients in another room
both locked in, in a hospital getting on fire.
The Janitor who is there has a very limited
time to unlock the door and save the life of
either the special Doctor or the ten patients
(only one of the two rooms).
–Which one you choose to save? The doctor or
the ten patients?
Chapter 2
Act- And Rule-Utilitarianism

o There are two classical types of
utilitarianism: act- and rule-utilitarianism.
o In applying the principle of utility, act-
utilitarians, such as Bentham, say that
ideally we ought to apply the principle to all
of the alternatives open to us at any given
moment.
oWe may define act-utilitarianism in this
way:
─ Act is right if and only if it results in as
much
good as any available
Chapter 2
Rule-utilitarianism:
o An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is
itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would
lead to greater utility for society than any available
alternative.
o Refers to elements in Mill’s theory.
o The act-utilitarian rule, to do the act that maximizes
utility, is too general for most purposes.

Chapter 2
• Therefore, Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical
laws in helping people determine which action will
probably bring about the greatest good for the greatest
number of people.
• While they are not against laws or values
(antinomians), they are not absolutists either. This
means those people who want to adhere to certain law
are absolutists like deontologists.
• But, Utilitarianists are not absolutists but still they are
not against the law because they certain value in
following ethical laws.
• The value, i.e., the ethical laws may help people to at
least determine which action will probably bring about
the greatest good people opt for.
Chapter 2
• For teleological aspect, let us see Utilitarianism

(Social Hedonism).
Example
• In order to determine the best consequence, some
argue that you must add up the happiness in one
person and then multiply that magnitude of
happiness by the total number of people involved in
the action and subtract the total pain that might
result about the action. And see the difference.
- If the result is negative then the action is bad, then
the action was bad.
Chapter 2
Criticism on teleology
Problems with Utilitarianism
•Teleological thinking about what is right, about what is
fair, good or bad has faced several criticism and critics in
the field says there are problems in using Utilitarianism
thinking.
For example, the end does not justify the means.
Meaning, you may be feeling happy by torturing
somebody or you may save somebody’s life by killing
another person.
- Here, whatever the end may be, so long as the means is
not right, the action may not be right is the issue here.
Chapter 2
• Mostly this criticism comes from deontological thinkers who

emphasized that the rightness of an action must be determined
not by the end but by means.
• They also say that an act is not automatically good simply
because it has a good goal but act by its very nature must have
some intrinsic value that is natural. That means there are acts
that are naturally put to be right so that everybody must be
able to do those acts and there are also categories of actions
which are always put to be wrong and every body must be not
doing it.
- Thus, an act is not automatically good simply because it has a
good goal. So, why teleology is criticized for this reason is
that, they make not the intrinsic value the criteria but the goal
of the act.
Chapter 2
• The other criticism is that Utilitarian acts have no

intrinsic value. An action which you do now to be right
may be called wrong later had it had some internist
value. A given action if it is right now, it is right for
ever. If it is right here, it will be right everywhere. If it is
right for you, it will be right for another person. This
shows that an act is intrinsically valuable.
• But, utilitarianists do not think that acts have intrinsic
values. They rather say, some actions may be right or
wrong at different times for different persons at different
places if it results in different consequences.
Chapter 2
• So, this branch of ethics, the attempt to save a life is not
intrinsically valuable act. That means even if you are
attempting to save at a time, you may doing wrong thing.
Because here, the moment you are doing to save one life
you may be killing another person.
• So, what utilitarianists compare here is how many lives
were saved by loosing how much lives and then
comparing the cost must not be greater than the benefit
of your act. So long as the act is for the action to be
right.
- So, killing is not be consistently wrong. Saving is not
consistently right. So, here no benevolence. Means
virtuousness, no sacrifice, no love has any value unless it
happens to have a good results for these thinkers.
Chapter 2
Deontology
• This is the other part of normative ethics which actually
doesn’t consider character but conduct.
• According to this theory, an action is right if it is in
accordance with a moral rule or principle.
These Moral Rules may be:
•Laid on us by God. E.g., the ten commandments in the
bible or all principles in other religions.
•Required by natural law. E.g., eating food
•Laid on us by reason. E.g., complaining when wrong
things are done on you and as same time on others.
•Required by rationality. Mean fairness to do this and
that.
•Would command universal rational acceptance
Chapter 2
In what ever the case may be, a certain principle

or principles should be laid down on the ground.
There must be list of activities or acts which we
call them right or wrong.
• So, by referring this list of acts, one can judge
him/her self doing right or wrong act.
• According to Deontology, acts are right or
wrong in and of themselves because of the kinds
of acts they are and not simply because of their
ends or consequences being right or wrong.
Chapter 2
• Therefore, Deontology opposes the practices of determining
the rightness and wrong nature of certain action by the
consequence it produce.
• Their logic is that there are times that wrong action could
produce good consequences. And the visa versa may be also
true.
• Hence, consequences could not be the base for the
determination of whether the action is right or not.
• It is the actions themselves that determine to be done or not.
So, ends do not justify means.
•A good end or purpose does not justify a bad action.
E.g., Scoring grade “A” sometimes don’t justify your competency.
Chapter 2
• Deontologists claimed that, we are duty-bound;

binding is not dependent on consequences, no
matter if it is painful or pleasurable.
• So, for Deontologists you are required to choose
actions based on inherent, intrinsic worth. That
means not by the consequence that the action
produces but by the very nature of the action or
if the action right or wrong.
•“Deontological” comes from the Greek word
“deon”, meaning that which is binding, in
particular a binding duty (rule) .
Chapter 2
Examples for Deontology

•Avail your self for work in your office, even if
your absence doesn’t result in punishment.
•Always tell the truth, even if it costs you a job.
•Keep a promise, regardless of whether doing so
will have good or bad consequences.
 Duty is not based on what is pleasant or
beneficial, but rather upon the obligation itself.
Duty is something that should be adhered to
because we have an obligation to do it.
Chapter 2
• An action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule

or principle. But what are these moral values or
principles? How we are going to relate these moral
principles to real world? Is the question. For this:
• We have to formally specify those moral principles, and
link the concepts of right action and moral rule together
so that we can develop deontological framework.
• This is why, because there is no guidance without a moral
rules. Unless otherwise we specify the right behavior
that one has adhered to.
•Therefore, linking right actions and moral rules is
essential to any deontological framework .
Chapter 2
Example
“Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow the money
and promise to repay, even though I know I will not
repay.”
- Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law
for one who can’t accept it as a universal law.
- Lying and not repaying would be morally right from a
deontological perspective if the person can consistently
accept that lying and not keeping promise be a universal
law

Chapter 2
• Linking right actions and moral rules is essential to any
deontological framework. But how?
• The concept of Deontology is further elaborated by seeing
two categorical imperatives. These are 1st categorical
imperative and 2nd categorical imperative.
• The two particular issues under this are: the issue of right
motive and right act.
• Right acts are the results of right motive. E.g., murder as a
crime may have different motives by the different persons
who conduct this crime (murder). So, the decision given by
the court may differ.
• Therefore, to determine the rightness of the action taken, it
may be necessary to refer back the motive. To know what
was the motive of persons.
Chapter 2
Accordingly, 1st Categorical Imperative puts like this:

“Act only on that maxim which can will as a universal law.”
• This means what I consider doing must be something that I
can will or accept that all do (universal). E.g., Are we
happy if our car being stolen? Definitely no. We should not do
on others that will not be good for us.
• So, for an action to be right, it should be universally accepted.
• In general, this category is about replacing individual
preferences with universal terms. Or it may be replacing
personal interest with that of public interest

Chapter 2
In supporting the 1st Categorical Imperative, the 2nd

Categorical Imperative says that:
“Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or
that of another, never simply as a means but always at the
same time as an end.” Meaning treating humanity as an
end not a means.
Example-1
You shouldn’t respect a person in expecting respect from
that person. Rather respect everybody because respecting
is the right act.
•This means that every person has intrinsic value & that
humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.
Chapter 2
Example -2
If you have to decide between whether to feed or
not of a starving person, you should not judge
the “rightness” or “wrongness” of your action by
what you get or loose in doing so.
•You have to do it for the sake of humanity. Here
humanity is an end.
• Since you will not be happy if somebody do not
help you when you are in hunger. So you are
expected to feed others in the same problem.
Chapter 2
Criticism on Deontology
 There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts.
•What about moral conflict between two, morally right
principles?
E.g., Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door
and ask for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to
kill.
So, here would you tell the truth to the killer and see what
comes next or not tell the truth and save the life of your
friend? These are two different conflicting ideas. you
must tell the truth (Kant’s idea). There is no clear way
given in Deontology when such things appear.
Chapter 2
2. Ethics of character
• The other branch of normative ethics parallel to
the ethics of conduct is the issue of character or
the ethics of character.
• Here, it is not the question of what should I do
so that I can be called as right person but, it is a
question of who should I be.

Chapter 2
• In this theory, the well known philosopher is

Aristotle and at that time people call it as
Aristotleanism .
• Here, rather we talk about virtue ethics which
focuses not people's actions but rather people’s
trait or behavior.

Chapter 2
The Concept of virtue
Virtue Ethics (ምን ተደረገ ሳይሆን ማን አደረገዉ ነዉ የድረጊትን ጥሩነት
ወይም መጥፎነት የምወስነዉ)
•Virtue is a character trait a human being needs to
flourish.
• It puts in black and white manner, and characters that
always need to be flourished.
• This particular ethical theory (i.e virtue ethics) judges
certain action not on whether the actions are right or
wrong but on whether the actions are taken by the
right person or the wrong person.
• According virtue ethics Peoples should not be judged
on their acts or consequences of their acts, or
feelings, or rules but on their personality.
Chapter 2
Why be virtuous (እንከን የማይወጣለት መልካም ሰዉ)?

• Let us see why we need to be virtuous. Here, the
justification is that goodness is necessary for good life.
• But, what is good life? Why is it for?
 Good life is not fame or wealth but one lived in
accordance with reason: a balanced life […] virtue
means every thing is functioning as it should be. (Good
life is: በምክንያታዊነት የተኖረ ሚዛናዊ ሂይወት ነዉ እንጂ ሀብት /ዝና
አይደለም)
• Accordingly, the result of living virtuously life is
eudemonia which shows that we are at state of
Chapter 2
Virtues agent
• The virtue agent is the person who possesses virtues or
virtuous characters. Meaning a courageous, a benevolent,
and an honest person.
• Why we need to raise the issue of agents here? It is
because of our need to compare ourselves against
someone who we call a good person.
• An action is right if it is whatever a virtuous agent would
do under the same circumstances.
• A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, i.e., one
who has & exercises the virtues. E.g., Mandela, Abebech
Gobena, Maria Theresa ….
Chapter 2
Thank You

Anthropology Power Point

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropology Power Point

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2

Monday, May 13, 2024

─ Secondly, ethics refers to the study and

• The terms Moral and ethical (and immoral and

Monday, May 13, 2024

• Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following

Teleologism Deontologism Aristotleanism

• Here the basic idea is that, the judgment may be

Monday, May 13, 2024

• Even basing on consequences of actions,

• The other classification of ethics based on

Monday, May 13, 2024

• The word teleology came from the Greek

• So, no matter what you do if the consequence or the end

Monday, May 13, 2024

•You may have a goal of making:

What matters is whether you can make the subject

- Follows hypothetical or theoretical or non - Categorical imperatives ( There are

- The difference is whose is that end (ዉጤቱ ለማን ጠቀመ)?

Monday, May 13, 2024

• In egoistic hedonism, the action that was going to be

• The term Egoism came from a Greek word “ego”

Monday, May 13, 2024

• Here the point is that no one does something which is

• If you do not want very bad things to be done to you, you

• Utilitarianism – claims that act is right or wrong

Monday, May 13, 2024

 Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the

Monday, May 13, 2024

 The quantitative score for any pleasure or pain

– John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity

Act- And Rule-Utilitarianism

Monday, May 13, 2024

• For teleological aspect, let us see Utilitarianism

• Mostly this criticism comes from deontological thinkers who

• The other criticism is that Utilitarian acts have no

In what ever the case may be, a certain principle

• Deontologists claimed that, we are duty-bound;

Examples for Deontology

• An action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule

Monday, May 13, 2024

Accordingly, 1st Categorical Imperative puts like this:

Monday, May 13, 2024

In supporting the 1st Categorical Imperative, the 2nd

Monday, May 13, 2024

• In this theory, the well known philosopher is

Monday, May 13, 2024

Why be virtuous (እንከን የማይወጣለት መልካም ሰዉ)?

Monday, May 13, 2024

You might also like