1.3.

Ethics and Morality entities that are indifferent to right and wrong are
considered amoral, while those who do evil acts are
What is Ethics?
considered immoral.
Ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline
concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally
right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or While some moral principles seem to transcend time and
theory of moral values or principles culture, such as fairness, generally speaking, morality is not
fixed. Morality describes the particular values of a specific
group at a specific point in time. Historically, morality has
How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at been closely connected to religious traditions, but today its
knowledge, virtue , or the creation of beautiful objects? If we significance is equally important to the secular world. For
choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? example, businesses and government agencies have codes of
And what of the more particular questions that face us: is it ethics that employees are expected to follow.
right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in
opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving?
Is going to war justified in cases where it is likely that Some philosophers make a distinction between morals and
innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone (Links to ethics. But many people use the terms morals and ethics
an external site.) a human being or to destroy human interchangeably when talking about personal beliefs, actions,
embryos in medical research? What are our obligations, if or principles. For example, it’s common to say, “My morals
any, to the generations of humans who will come after us prevent me from cheating.” It’s also common to use ethics in
and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the this sentence instead.
planet?

So, morals are the principles that guide individual conduct

Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject within society. And, while morals may change over time,
consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision they remain the standards of behavior that we use to judge
making, and its major concerns include the nature of right and wrong.
ultimate value and the standards by which human actions
can be judged right or wrong (Links to an external site.).
Issues, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

At the final point of clarification, it might be helpful to

The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now
distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be
common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical
called moral issue. Supposing, a person cannot afford to buy
principles where it once would have been more accurate to
a certain item and he resort to stealing. This is a matter of
speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These
ethics and not just law insofar as it involves a question of
applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In
respect to one's property. We should add that issue is also
earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to
often used to refer to those particular situation that are
the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as
often the source considerable and inconclusive debate, thus
its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral
we often hear topics like capital punishment and euthanasia
philosophy.
as moral issues.

What Is Morality?
When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the
Morality is the prevailing standard of behavior that enable choice of what act to perform, he is called to make a moral
people to live cooperatively in groups. Moral refers to what decision. For instance, I chose not to take something I did
societies sanction as right and acceptable. not pay for, When a person is an observer, who makes an
assessment of the action or behavior of someone, she is
making a moral judgment. If a friend of mine chooses to
Most people tend to act morally and follow societal steal from a store and I made an assessment that it is wrong.
guidelines. Morality often requires that people sacrifice their
own short-term interests for the benefit of society. People or
Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over Conventional morality can differ from society to society. The
wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more conventional morality of Saudi Arabia forbids women from
complicated situation, wherein one is torn between the publicly contradicting their husbands or brothers, while
lesser of two evil, this is referred to as moral dilemma. We Denmark’s conventional morality allows this. People in the
experience moral dilemma when an individual cam choose United States would think it immoral to leave a restaurant
one from a number of possible action and there are without tipping a good waiter or bartender, while such
compelling ethical reasons for various choices. behavior in many other societies is perfectly OK.

1.5. Conventional and Critical Morality What is Critical Morality?

How do human beings make moral judgments? When we talk about morality in this course, we will be
referring to moral standards that are not rooted in
This has been an ongoing and unresolved debate in
widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of
psychology, and with good reason. Moral judgments aren’t
conventional morality and can be used to critically evaluate
just opinions. They are the decisions with which we condemn
its merits.
others to social exclusion, jail, and even violent retaliation.
Given their weight, moral judgments are often assumed to
be rational, though recent psychological research has
It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is all there
suggested that they may be more like gut feelings. While
is. But this would be a very surprising discovery. Most of us
debates about whether moral judgments are deliberate,
assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a moral view is not
conscious attributions, or automatic intuitions have been
a guarantee of its truth. We could be wrong on this point,
fruitful both theoretically and practically, the next direction
but until we have a chance to consider the matter in detail, I
in moral research needs to take a pragmatic turn. Rather
think it best to assume that conventional morality can
than continue to ask whether morals are deliberate or
sometimes be mistaken. If so, then there may be some
affective, it’s time to ask when moral judgments are
independent, critical morality that
deliberate and when they are affective, and how these
different types of reasoning both inform judgment.

(1) does not have its origin in social agreements;

What is Conventional morality? (2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular
prejudices; and
It is the system of widely accepted rules and principles,
created by and for human beings, that members of a culture (3) can serve as the true standard for determining when
or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen
actions and the motivations of others. In essence, into error.
conventional morality is the system of widely accepted rules
and principles, created by and for human beings, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives That is the morality whose nature we are going to explore in
and to assess the actions and the motivations of others. this course.
Suppose you take a sociology or an anthropology course, and
you get to a unit on the morality of the cultures you’ve been
studying. You’ll likely focus on the patterns of behavior to be
found in the cultures, their accepted ideas about right and
wrong, and the sorts of character traits that these cultures
find admirable. These are the elements of what we can call
conventional morality—the system of widely accepted rules
and principles, created by and for human beings, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives
and to assess the actions and the motivations of others.
 1.6. Normative and Descriptive Ethics What is Descriptive Ethics?

Descriptive ethics or comparative ethics is the study of

people’s views about moral beliefs. In other words, it
analyses ‘what do people think is right?’ Thus, the study of
descriptive ethics involves describing people’s moral values
and standards as well as their behaviour.

Furthermore, descriptive ethics is a type of empirical study

that incorporates research from the fields of psychology,
sociology, anthropology, and history. Such empirical studies
observe that all cultures and societies have their own moral
standards that advocate or forbid certain types of actions.
Descriptive ethics also analyse the differences and
similarities between the moral practices of different
societies, and evaluate the development of the standards
behind these practices.

While normative ethics analyses how people ought to act

The main difference between normative ethics and whereas descriptive ethics analyses people’s moral values,
descriptive ethics is that normative ethics analyses how standards and behaviour.
people ought to act whereas descriptive ethics analyses
what people think is right.
1.7. Branches of Moral Philosophy

What is Normative Ethics? Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three
general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and
Basically, normative ethics is the study of ethical action applied ethics.
whereas descriptive ethics is the study of people’s views
about moral beliefs. Descriptive ethics, as its name implies,
describes the behaviour of people and what moral standards Metaethics
they follow. In contrast, descriptive ethics is concerned with
what is morally right and wrong. The other two well-known investigates where our ethical principles come from, and
branches of ethics are metaethics (Links to an external site.) what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they
and applied ethics. involve more than expressions of our individual emotions?
Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues
of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. In simple ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms
words, it analyses how people ought to act, in terms of themselves. Metaethics talks about the nature of ethics and
morality. It is also concerned with the criteria of what is moral reasoning. Discussions about whether ethics is relative
morally right and wrong. Moreover, the core concept of and whether we always act from self-interest are examples
normative ethics is how to arrive at basic moral standards of meta-ethical discussions. In fact, drawing the conceptual
and how to justify basic moral standards. Teleological and distinction between Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and
deontological theories are the tools that help to determine Applied Ethics is itself a "metaethical analysis."
this concept. In teleological ethics, the goodness or badness
of action is determined by examining the consequences of
that action, whereas, in deontological theories, the goodness Normative ethics
or badness of action is determined by examining the action takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral
itself. standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may
involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire,
the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our
Normative ethics is interested in determining the content of there are people you care deeply about, and who care
our moral behavior. Normative ethical theories seek to deeply about you.
provide action-guides; procedures for answering the
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can
Practical Question ("What ought I to do?"). The moral
demand only so much of us. Moral standards that are
theories of Kant and Bentham are examples of normative
impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality must respect
theories that seek to provide guidelines for determining a
our limitations.
specific course of moral action. Think of the Categorical
Imperative in the case of the former and the Principle of 5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. Moral
Utility in the case of the latter behavior on others. responsibility assumes an ability on our part to understand
options, to make decisions in an informed way, and to let our
decisions guide our behavior. The fewer of these abilities you
Applied ethics have, the less blameworthy you are for any harm you might
cause.
involves examining specific controversial issues, such as
abortion, infanticide, animal, environmental, homosexuality, 6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory
capital punishment, or nuclear war. Applied Ethics attempts that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is
to deal with specific realms of human action and to craft important that we get what we deserve, and that we are
criteria for discussing issues that might arise within those treated fairly.
realms. The contemporary field of Applied Ethics arouse in
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires justification.
the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The default position in ethics is this: do no harm. It is
sometimes morally acceptable to harm others, but there
must be an excellent reason for doing so or else the harmful
1.8. Moral Starting Points
behavior is unjustified.
One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to
8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are alike
begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that there are any
in all relevant respects should get similar treatment. When
proper starting points for ethical reflection. They believe that
this fails to happen—when racist or sexist policies are
moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases
enacted, for instance—then something has gone wrong.
and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to be lax in
moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no 9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration. How
moral views are any better than others. While this sort of well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the only thing of
skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as the moral importance. Morality sometimes calls on us to set
default view of ethics. We should accept it only as a last aside our own interests for the sake of others.
resort.
10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is
bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to cause such extreme
suffering, but doing so requires a very powerful justification.
In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly plausible ethical
assumptions, claims that can get us started in our moral 11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get away
thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you up to the with lots of things that the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t
idea that we are not just spinning our wheels when thinking justify what they do. That a person can escape punishment is
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us one thing—whether his actions are morally acceptable is
when thinking about how to live. Here are some of them: another.

1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral 12. Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. If,
criticism. The law does not have the final word on what is with eyes wide open and no one twisting your arm, you ask
right and wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions that are someone to do something for you, and she does it, then your
legal, or customary, are sometimes morally mistaken. rights have not been violated— even if you end up hurt as a
result.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some mistaken
ethical views, and no human being is wholly wise when it There are a number of points to make about these claims.
comes to moral matters.
o First, this short list isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good thing. could be made much longer.
Friendships add value to your life. You are better off when
 o Second, we are not claiming that the items on this someone threatens your children or happily tells you a racist
list are beyond criticism. We are only saying that joke. So the standards of etiquette can depart from those of
each one is very plausible. Hard thinking might morality.
weaken our confidence in some cases. The point,
though, is that without such scrutiny, it is perfectly
reasonable to begin our moral thinking with the Self-interest
items on this list.
The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-
o Third, many of these claims require interpretation
interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in
in order to apply them in a satisfying way. When we
life by betraying others, lying about their past, breaking the
say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated
rules that others are following. It’s an unhappy thought, but
equally, we leave all of the interesting questions
a very commonsensical one: you sometimes can improve
open. (What makes people equals? Can we treat
your lot in life by acting immorally. And those who behave
people equally without treating them in precisely the
virtuously are sometimes punished, rather than rewarded,
same way? And so on.)
for it. Whistle blowers who reveal a company’s or a
A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery, government official’s corruption are often attacked for their
sadism, hostility, and slavery is, depending on how you look efforts, sued to the point of bankruptcy, and targeted for
at it, either no morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any their courageous behavior. Though the relation between
morality worth the name will place some importance on self-interest and morality is contested, it is a plausible
justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness. starting point to assume that morality can sometimes
require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that we can
sometimes improve our lot in life by acting unethically.
1.9. Normative Systems

We can also better understand morality by contrasting its

Tradition
principles with those of other normative systems. Each of
these represents a set of standards for how we ought to Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a practice
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break. has been around a long time does not automatically make it
moral. Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as
There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our focus to
it did when people called for the abolition of slavery or for
four of the most important of them: those that govern the
allowing women to vote. And some nontraditional, highly
law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
innovative practices may be morally excellent. The longevity
of a practice is not a foolproof test of its morality.

Law

The fact that a law tells us to do something does not settle 1.10. Does Morality Depend on Religion?
the question of whether morality gives its stamp of approval.
The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion
Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not illegal.
In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable:
And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism of a dictator) are
People commonly believe that morality can be understood
not immoral. Certainly, many laws require what morality
only in the context of religion. Thus the clergy are assumed
requires and forbid what morality forbids. But the fit is
to be authorities on morality.
hardly perfect, and that shows that morality is something
different from the law. That a legislature passed a bill is not When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the universe
enough to show that the bill is morally acceptable. seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and
purpose.

Etiquette
The Divine Command Theory
We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of
etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate, The basic idea is that God decides what is right and wrong.
but it isn’t immoral to set them on the right. Good manners Actions that God commands are morally required; actions
are not the same thing as morally good conduct. Morality that God forbids are morally wrong; and all other actions are
sometimes requires us not to be polite or gracious, as when permissible or merely morally neutral.
This theory has a number of attractive features. 2.4. The Minimum Conception of Morality

o It immediately solves the old problem of the What is the Minimum Conception of Morality?
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of
The minimum conception of morality states that morality is,
personal feeling or social custom. Whether
at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by
something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It
reason--that is, to do what there are the best reasons for
is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids
doing--while living equal weight to the interests of each
it.
individual affected by one's decision.
o The Divine Command Theory explains why any of us
should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t we just Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s
look out for ourselves? If immorality is the violation conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best
of God’s commandments, then there is an easy reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests
answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be of each individual affected by one’s action.
held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems with the theory.

This paints a picture of what it means to be a conscientious
o Atheists would not accept it, because they do not moral agent. The conscientious moral agent is someone who
believe that God exists. is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone
o But there are difficulties even for believers. One can affected by what he or she does; who carefully sifts facts and
be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the examines their implications; who accepts principles of
gods command it, or do the gods command it conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are
because it is right? This is a question whether God justified; who will “listen to reason” even when it means
makes the moral truths true or whether he merely revising prior convictions; and who, finally, is willing to act on
recognizes that they’re true. these deliberations.

First, we might say that right conduct is right because God As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this
commands it. But this idea encounters several difficulties. “minimum.” This picture of the conscientious moral agent
has been disputed in various ways. However, theories that
1. This conception of morality is mysterious.
reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is why most moral
2. This conception of morality makes God’s commands
theories embrace the minimum conception, in one form or
arbitrary.
another.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong
reasons for moral principles.

Second option has a different drawback.

In taking it, we abandon the theological conception of right

and wrong. When we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a
standard that is independent of God’s will. The rightness
exists prior to God’s command and is the reason for the
command.

What support can be given for the minimum conception of

morality?

Rachels states that if we want to discover the truth about

some moral problem, that we must let our feelings be guided
by reason. This means that the "morally right thing to do is
always the thing best supported by the arguments"
The other option is to let our moral judgments be guided by And a third added: “What the parents are really asking for is,
feelings. However, our feelings may be irrational - "the Kill this dying baby so that its organs may be used for
products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning". someone else. Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.”

By examining the arguments we can think about our initial 2.4.2. Jodie and Mary
emotional reactions and whether they need to be modified.
In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south
Rachels states that moral theory must include the idea of
of Italy, discovered that she was carrying conjoined twins.
impartiality - the idea that "each individual's interests are
Knowing that the health-care facilities on Gozo were
equally important; no one should get special treatment" This
inadequate to deal with such a birth, she and her husband
requirement prevents us from treating people arbitrarily, if
went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester, England. The
we are going to treat people differently we must have a good
infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at the lower
reason for doing so.
abdomen. Their spines were fused, and they had one heart
and one pair of lungs between them. Jodie, the stronger one,
was providing blood for her sister.
2.4.1. Baby Theresa

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public

as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa No one knows how many sets of conjoined twins are born
had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders. each year, but the number has been estimated at 200. Most
Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies die shortly after birth, but some do well. They grow to
without brains,” but that is not quite accurate. Important adulthood and marry and have children themselves. But the
parts of the brain— the cerebrum and cerebellum—are outlook for Mary and Jodie was grim. The doctors said that
missing, as is the top of the skull. The brain stem, however, is without intervention the girls would die within six months.
still there, and so the baby can still breathe and possess a The only hope was an operation to separate them. This
heartbeat. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly would save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately.
are detected during pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually
aborted. Of those not aborted, half are stillborn. About 350
are born alive each year, and they usually die within days. The parents, who were devout Catholics, refused permission
for the operation on the grounds that it would hasten Mary’s
death. “We believe that nature should take its course,” they
Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents said. “If it’s God’s will that both our children should not
made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby would die survive, then so be it.” The hospital, hoping to save Jodie,
soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents petitioned the courts for permission to perform the
volunteered her organs for immediate transplant. They operation anyway. The courts agreed, and the operation was
thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go performed. As expected, Jodie lived and Mary died.
to other children who could benefit from them. Her
physicians agreed. Thousands of infants need transplants
each year, and there are never enough organs available. But In thinking about this case, we should distinguish the
Theresa’s organs were not taken, because Florida law forbids question of who should make the decision from the question
the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the time of what the decision should be. You might think, for
Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late—her example, that the decision should be left to the parents, and
organs had deteriorated too much to be harvested and so the courts should not have intruded. But there remains
transplanted. Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. the separate question of what would be the wisest choice for
Should she have been killed so that her organs could have the parents (or anyone else) to make.
been used to save other children? A number of professional
“ethicists”—people employed by universities, hospitals, and
law schools, who get paid to think about such things—were 2.4.3. Tracy Latimer
asked by the press to comment. Most of them disagreed
with the parents and physicians. Instead, they appealed to Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, was
time-honored philosophical principles to oppose taking the killed by her father in 1993. Tracy lived with her family on a
organs. “It just seems too horrifying to use people as means prairie farm in Saskatchewan, Canada. One Sunday morning
to other people’s ends,” said one such expert. Another while his wife and other children were at church, Robert
explained: “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.” Latimer put Tracy in the cab of his pickup truck and piped in
exhaust fumes until she died. At the time of her death, Tracy to our own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or
weighed less than 40 pounds, and she was described as normal. Instead, we should try to understand cultural
“functioning at the mental level of a three-month-old baby.” practices of other groups in its own cultural context. For
Mrs. Latimer said that she was relieved to find Tracy dead example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting! ”
when she arrived home and added that she “didn’t have the one should instead ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried
courage” to do it herself. insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or grasshoppers
are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional
cuisine and have been eaten for thousands of years as a
Robert Latimer was tried for murder, but the judge and jury healthy food source!
did not want to treat him harshly. The jury found him guilty
of only second-degree murder and recommended that the
judge ignore the mandatory 10-year sentence. The judge Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
agreed and sentenced him to one year in prison, followed by
o The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of
a year of confinement to his farm. But the Supreme Court of
their dead fathers.
Canada stepped in and ruled that the mandatory sentence
o The Greeks, of course, did not do that—the Greeks
must be imposed. Robert Latimer entered prison in 2001 and
was paroled in 2008. practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre
as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.
o The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by
great distances, and their customs turned out to be
Description of Slippery Slope
very different from ours. The men often had more
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that than one wife, and they would share their wives with
some event must inevitably follow from another without any guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of
argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a
most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between dominant male might demand—and get—regular
one event and the one in question and no reason is given as sexual access to other men’s wives. The women,
to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be however, were free to break these arrangements
bypassed. This "argument" has the following form: simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with
new partners—free, that is, so long as their former
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
husbands chose not to make too much trouble. All in
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no practice that bore little resemblance to our custom.
reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from
The Cultural Differences Argument
another without an argument for such a claim. This is
especially clear in cases in which there is a significant 1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
number of steps or gradations between one event and 2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
another. 3. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
Examples of Slippery Slope
What Follows from Cultural Relativism
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you
know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!" 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other
societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own
2.5. Cultural Relativism society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
What is Cultural Relativism?
What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism
It is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices
should be understood based on that person's own culture, First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the
rather than be judged against the criteria of another. To danger of assuming that all of our practices are based on
avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are some absolute rational standard. They are not. Some of our
different to yours, we can use the cultural relativism customs are merely conventional—merely peculiar to our
approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture society—and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. Cultural
Relativism begins with the insight that many of our practices While they were conversing in the mud-wagon coach,
are like this—they are only cultural products. Lincoln remarked to Baker that in doing good and evil, all
people are motivated by selfishness. Just as Baker challenged
The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind. As
Lincoln’s assertion, their coach crossed a rickety bridge over
we grow up, we develop strong feelings about things: We
a slough (a large swampy marsh.)
learn to see some types of behavior as acceptable, and other
types as outrageous.

Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for this kind of Abruptly, Lincoln and Baker glimpsed a mother pig making a
dogmatism. Realizing this can help broaden our minds. We terrible squeal because her piglets were stuck in the swamp,
can see that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of couldn’t get out, and were in danger of drowning
the truth— they may be due to cultural conditioning and
As their coach started to head away, Lincoln yelled, “Driver,
nothing more.
can’t you stop just a moment?” The driver replied, “If the
Many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are really other fellow don’t object.”
only cultural products.
With Baker’s approval, Lincoln jumped out of the wagon, ran
to the slough, lifted the piglets one by one out of the swamp,
and carried them to the dry bank of the swamp.
Key points
When Lincoln returned to the coach, Baker remarked, “Now,
Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral codes.
Abe, where does selfishness come in this little episode?”
Therefore, there are no universal moral truths, the customs
of different societies are all that exist. Lincoln replied, “Why, bless your soul, Ed, that was the very
essence of selfishness. I would have had no peace of mind all
day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying
The following claims have all been made by cultural over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don’t you see?”
relativists:

1. Different societies have different moral codes; that a

Altruism is when we act to promote someone else’s welfare,
certain action is right, then that action is right, at
even at a risk or cost to ourselves.
least within that society.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to Being moved by the plight of others—even the suffering of
judge one society’s code as better than another’s. animals (or sentient beings to use Buddhist terminology) as
There are no moral truths that hold for all people at in the aforementioned legend of Lincoln and the piglets—is
all times. considered a selfish deed per modern philosophy’s theory of
3. The moral code of our own society has no special psychological egoism.
status; it is but one among many.
4. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant of them. Egoism has its roots in the philosophy of the Greek
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE,) who argued that the
within that society; that is, if the moral code of a human mind is driven by the need to maximize pleasure and
society says it is. minimize pain. Egoism contends that deep down all our
actions are motivated by what we perceive to be in our own
self-interest.
2.6. Altruism or Egoism?

The Fable of Abraham Lincoln and the Pigs

For example, if Tom saves Mark from drowning in a river,
Once Lincoln was traveling in a mud-wagon coach along a egoism contends that Tom’s seemingly altruistic behavior is
swampy, rural area. His fellow passenger was his good friend actually motivated by his own self-interest to avoid potential
and US Senator Edward Dickinson Baker, who later lost his social censure for not helping Mark or to be regarded a hero
life in the Battle of Ball’s Bluff at the onset of the American within his social circle.
Civil War.
What is Altruism? o If a certain action would benefit (or harm) other
people, then that is a reason why we should (or
Altruism means acting in the best interest of others rather
should not) perform that action.
than in one’s own self-interest. Some people believe altruism
o The commonsense assumption is that other people’s
constitutes the essence of morality. Although we often act
interests count, from a moral point of view.
selfishly, we also seem to be wired to cooperate with others.
o Some people believe that we have no duties to
For example, studies show that when people look for mates,
others.
they tend to look for kindness more than any other quality.
o This view is known as Ethical Egoism.
o Each person ought to pursue his or her own self-
interest exclusively.
People’s moral judgments are often driven by emotion. And
o This is the morality of selfishness. It holds that our
empathy for others seems to encourage altruism. Another
only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other
emotion, called “elevation,” appears to inspire altruistic
people matter only insofar as they can benefit us.
behavior, too. We feel elevation when we see another
person act virtuously, such as by helping someone in need. What is Ethical Egoism?

Ethical egoism claims that each person ought to pursue his

or her own self-interest exclusively. People ought to be self-
Altruism also builds social connections. For example, studies
interested and that our neighbors ought not to give to
show that people who are altruistic tend to be happier, to be
charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or
healthier, and to live longer. So, while altruism leads us to do
about the way things should be.
what’s best for others, it also makes us feel good in the
process.

What is Psychological Egoism?

Emmanuel Levinas & Ideal Altruism: By contrast, asserts that each person does in fact pursue his
or her own self-interest exclusively. People are self-
Core ideas:
interested and that our neighbors will not give to charity.
o The other is always more important than oneself Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature, or
o It is morally wrong to act to benefit oneself about the way things are.
o It is morally praiseworthy to sacrifice one’s own
interests to benefit others.
What are the main differences between the two?

The main difference between psychological egoism and

2.7. Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism
ethical egoism is that psychological egoism emphasizes the
Psychological Egoism- We do act on our own self-interest. fact that people act primarily out of self-interest while
ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for
Ethical Egoism – We should act in our own self-interest. their self-interest.
Is there a Duty to Help the Starving?

o Every day, around 22,000 children under the age of At initial thought, egoism refers to pride, selfishness and
5 die, almost always from preventable causes. having high self-worth. However, with regard to
o Poverty poses an acute problem for many of us who psychological egoism and ethical egoism, these definitions
are not poor. take on different facets.
o Why do we let people starve when we could save
them?

Is There a Duty to Help the Starving?

o We have duties to others simply because they are

people who could be helped or harmed by what we
do.
 When looking for a criterion to determine whether a given
action is ethical, it seems that the most prominent issue we
face is ethical egoism. Since in many cases, it is a difficult and
painstaking task to determine the boundaries between
ethical egoism and ethical altruism, it is crucially important
to study ethical egoism. Since Rand provides strong
arguments in favor of ethical egoism and presents most of
her philosophical viewpoints in the form of novels—a
psychologically influential and attractive medium—it is truly
essential to study her theory of egoism in the field of ethics.

Her arguments

o The perfection of one's abilities in a state of

happiness is the highest goal for humans.
o The ethics of altruism prescribes that we sacrifice
our interests and lives for the good of others.
o Therefore, the ethics of altruism is incompatible with
the goal of happiness.
o Ethical egoism prescribes that we seek our own
happiness exclusively, and as such it is consistent
with the happiness goal.
o Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral
theory.

It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose

2.7.1 Ayn Rand's Argument between sacrificing other people to ourselves (which is
Ayn Rand's Interpretation of Ethical Egoism deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and sacrificing our
own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed
Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was an American novelist and unselfish and therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects
philosopher, and the creator of Objectivism, which she both options as forms of selflessness, and offers a new
called “a philosophy for living on earth.” A Russian- concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that
American writer and philosopher, she is known for her two rejects sacrifice in all its forms.
best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged,
and for developing a philosophical system she named
Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, she moved to the Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you
United States in 1926. please.” Moral principles are not a matter of personal
opinion — they are based in the facts of reality, in man’s
nature as a rational being, who must think and act
Different interpretations have been offered for ethical successfully in order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is
egoism. Ayn Rand believes that man should not sacrifice to identify the kinds of action that in fact benefit oneself.
himself for others, and should not sacrifice others for himself These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity,
either. According to this interpretation, the primary and honesty, justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue,
natural goal of any living creature is to protect itself. The rationality. Rand’s moral ideal is a life of reason, purpose and
ethical value of each deed is also defined based on the same self-esteem.
goal. Of all living creatures, ethics only applies to man, since
he has the ability to choose among valuable and invaluable
goals.