GE-8 Ethics |Module 2 and 3|Moral

Philosophy, | Birth, | Meaning, | Comparative

Analysis, | Scope, | Assumptions
Reminder: Please be reminded that the distribution of modules in this subject is through the
CEAS office, made to be available for copying only maybe by a xerographic copier. This shall be
available only on the first (1 st) and third (3rd) Monday of the month during the entire period of
the semester.
(For BSEM 2A,2B,2C,2D and BSEE 3B exclusive use)

I. Warm-up:
For 2-5 minutes ponder on these questions: (you may write on a sheet of paper)
1. Recall rules that a person needs to follow?
2. Explain why do we have to follow?

II. Introduction:
When you study Ethics, and you evaluate what is right and wrong, it can be
tempting and comforting to spend time simply defending your initial views; few
people would come to a debate about slavery or abortion, without some pre-
existing belief. If you are open-minded in your ethical approach then you need
not reject everything you currently believe, but your Introduction should see these
beliefs as starting points, or base camps, from which your enquiry commences.
For example, how should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge,
virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our
own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions that face
us: is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can the end justify the means?
Can we countenance the impositions of death penalty aim to lessen crimes? Is
going to war justified in cases where it is likely that innocent people will be killed?
Is it wrong to practice euthanasia to a sick person though justified by a never-
ending suffering? What are our obligations, if any, to the generations of humans
who will come after us and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the
planet?

Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the
fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns
include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human
actions can be judged right or wrong.

III. Input
 ETYMOLOGICAL AND TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
According to Google, Ethics refers to a moral principle that govern a person's
behavior or the conducting of an activity. But I choose a more eloquent and
realistic meaning to a term. In the realm of Wikipedia, it succinctly says that
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves
systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong
behavior". From this we could create a liberating perspective that ethics does not
literally tells us what to do and what not to do. It creates a vacuum still, because
it thus gives us as a person, an independent choice guided by these
recommended concepts of ethical study. The field of ethics, along with
aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of
philosophy called axiology.
The English word ethics is derived from the Ancient Greek word ēthikós (ἠθικός),
meaning "relating to one's character", which itself comes from the root
 word êthos (ἦθος) meaning "character, moral nature". This word was transferred
into Latin as ethica and then into French as éthique, from which it was
transferred into English.
Ethics deals with the studies that constitutes good and bad conduct, right
and wrong values, and good and evil. Its primary investigations include how to
live a good life and identifying standards of morality. It also includes investigating
whether or not there is a best way to live or a universal moral standard, and if so,
how we come to learn about it.

 THE BIRTH OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Can we determine as to point in time when did the study of ethics begin? Or
where or when did Ethics originates? We can probably posit that ethics may
come from the moment when human started to think or to reflect on the best way
to live. This reflective stage emerged long after human societies had developed
some kind of morality, usually in the form of customary standards of right and
wrong conduct. The process of reflection tended to arise from such customs,
even if in the end it may have found them wanting.

On the other hand, some may base the divine interventions as the pioneering
structure of ethical principles. That God being the source of everything then one
could cogently conclude that the conduct of human was from an almighty
endowment. And in the propagations of righteousness or in the justifications of
good in the face of evilness, God has created the so-called living proof of
testaments.

But on the account of concrete and credible proof of events that unfold. It maybe
safe to say if we acknowledge the not mythical account of happening that occur
during our early Greek philosophical era. To begin with, let us divide our time to
Pre-Socratic, Socratic and Modern Era.

Pre-Socratic:

 Now, the famous among the line of Sophist during the pre-Socratic era
was Protagoras.

 Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of these professional

sophists. According to him,
o Good is subjective
o MAN IS THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS
o all practical philosophy is personal in a positive way that the idea of
good in individual’s mind create moral codes for the social group.

 Gorgias - Leontini, 483 B.C

o as the good and truth are subjective in the man’s mind there are only
particular feelings of limited subjective nature, the good of another cannot
be the end of action of me.

Socratic era:

 Socrates - the founder of Science of Ethics:(Athens, 469-399 B.C.) he

was against SOPHISTS LIKE Gorgias and their egoism
o Virtue is knowledge, it may be thought and learned.
o He who knows must act accordingly.
 o No one voluntarily follows evil, because vice can only be due to ignorance

 Plato - (427-347 B.C.) Students of Socrates, Socratic schools of thought

o Defined the social good and individual good and their relationships
(Famous book of Republic)
o Justice is the highest virtue, and it includes all others. It requires
individuality too. Every member of the State should be just.

 Aristotle – (384-322, Stagira, Thrace)

o Social good is above the individual good, only in so far as individuals
make up a society and their actions attain the good of the society. It is the
subject of political sciences as the science of ethics.
o Well-being is acting rationally or in accordance with the nature of man.
o Doctrine of mean: Every kind of excellence(virtue) – is a mean between
two extremes i.e., ONE AN EXCESS AND THE OTHER A DEFECT.

Modern ethics

 YEAR 0 (A.D.) beginning of modern ethics under the influence of stronger

moral and spiritual forces of Christianity

 MEDIEVAL ERA (NEOPLATONISTS)

 Descartes (1596-1650): TRUTH IS WHAT CAN BE PREHENDED.
BY MAN
 Spinoza (1632-1677): TRUTH IS ITS OWN CRITERION.
 Hobbes - The founder of modern Ethics, an Egoistic Naturalist) (1588-
1679)

 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) - is the most important name in modern

ethics.
the only absolutely good thing is the “good will
 UTILITARIANISM - is the doctrine that the ethical standard should be
“great happiness” of the greatest number (of people). Its founder is
Bentham (1748-1832) who was followed with Stuart Mill and Sidgwick

 RELATED ANALYSIS ON DIFFERENT PERSPERCTIVES

1. Morality
2. Etiquette
3. Techniques
4. Prudential reasons
5. Legality

1) Morality – although many claims that there is a difference between ethics

and morality, in philosophy the terms are used generally interchangeably.
However, when distinction is made, ethics generally is considered standards
of right and wrong that are imposed by some outside group, a society or
profession for example. Morality on the other hand is one’s personal sense of
right and wrong. It is not imposed by anyone; it is what you think is good and
bad personally.
 2) Etiquette – is the set of conventional rules of personal behavior
in polite society, and concerns with right and wrong actions, but those which
might be considered not quite grave enough to belong to discussions on
ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may displease seeing a
healthy man refuse to offer seat on the bus to an elderly lady. But my
indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to see a man
deliberately push another one out of moving bus.

3) Techniques – are often used to refer to a proper way or right way of doing
things, and may be necessarily an ethical one. This could be when one is
learning how to bake for instance. I am told that the right thing to do would be
to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour or=r sugar before bringing in any
liquids, like milk or cream. This is the right thing to do in baking, but not one
that belongs to a discussion on ethics.

4) Prudential reasons - relate to our personal reasons for doing things.

Something to keep separate are ethical reasons and prudential reasons.
Prudential reasons relate to our personal reasons for doing things. Consider
some examples. When defending slavery, people used to cite the fact that it
supported the economy as a reason to keep it. It is true, of course, that this is
a reason; it is a prudential reason, particularly for those who benefited from
slavery such as traders or plantation owners. Yet, such a reason does not
help us with the moral question of slavery. We would say “OK, but so what if
it helps the economy! Is it right or wrong?”

5) Legality – Ethical questions are distinct from legal questions, although, of

course, moral issues might have some implications for the law. That child
labor is morally unacceptable might mean that we have a law against it. But it
is unhelpful to answer whether something is morally right or wrong by looking
to the laws of the land. It is quite easy to see why. Imagine a country which
has a set of actions which are legally acceptable, but morally unacceptable or
vice versa — the well-used example of Nazi Germany brings to mind this
distinction. Therefore, in discussions about ethics do be wary of talking about
legal issues. Much more often than not, such points will be irrelevant.

 SCOPE OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Three main branches of ethics

1) Metaethics
2) Normative
3) Applied

1) Metaethics

o prefix “meta” is derived from the Greek for “beyond”

o is the study of how we engage in ethics. It concerns with the moral
language.
o the branch of philosophical ethics that asks how we understand,
know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and
what is wrong.
o “Is there a constant and knowable knowledge of what is right or
wrong”. – Metaethics question.
 Metaethical conclusions do not tell us how we should morally act or which
type of decision is morally correct in any one particular circumstance.
Instead, Metaethics is focused on questions regarding how ethical study
— at both normative and applied levels — works. Some typical
metaethical questions are:
• When we say something is “morally good”, what do we mean?
• If the claim that “euthanasia is morally wrong” is true, what makes it
true? • If moral claims are sometimes true, what methods do we use to
access these moral truths?
You should not expect a metaethical argument to provide specific
guidance regarding how to act, but you should expect a metaethical
argument to critique the foundations of normative or applied action-
guiding moral theories.

 Division of Metaethics It is a prerequisite for understanding

and evaluating metaethical theories that you understand these two
classes.

1. Cognitivism or descriptive - suggests that when we make moral

claims of the form “murder is wrong” or “helping others is right” our
claims can be true or false (what philosophers call truth-apt).
According to the cognitivist, what makes our moral statements
true or false is whether or not they accurately pick out, or refer to,
specifically moral aspects of the world.

Thus, the cognitivist views our moral language as essentially

descriptive in nature; we try to describe genuinely moral features
of the world and our moral claims are true when our descriptions
are accurate and false when they are inaccurate. Crucially,
keep in mind that Semantic Cognitivism only goes as far as
suggesting that moral claims are truth-apt — capable of being true
or false. Cognitivism, by itself, does not suggest anything about
moral claims ever actually being true. Instead, it is purely a theory
explaining the meaning of moral statements.

2. Non-cognitivism or non-descriptive – is the view that when we

judge something as morally right or wrong, this is neither true nor
false. We may, for example, be only expressing our emotional
feelings about these things. Accordingly, when we utter
sentences such as “murder is wrong” we are not attempting to
describe any moral features of the world but we are simply
expressing an attitude or feeling — perhaps disgust, or anger, in
this case. Attitudes are not the types of things that can be true or
false because they are not truth-apt; they do not aim at truth and
do not attempt to describe or refer to any feature of the world.
Consider what happens when you get frustrated with your work,
for example, and exclaim “Ahhhhh!” This is an expression of an
attitude, it is not something which describes the world and it is not
truth apt.
This concept holds that hold that the psychology behind our non-
truth- apt moral expressions is not to be understood as based on
“belief”, but rather based on “…desires, preferences, emotions,
intentions or the like”

2) Normative
o prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standard or basis of
valuation. It concerns what ought to act.
o It focuses on providing the framework for deciding what is right or
wrong.

o It is often done in the moral theology or impositions of law of a

particular nation. It engages the question: What could or should be the
right way of acting?

This main branch of ethics focuses on the creation of theories that

provide general moral rules governing our behavior, such as
Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics. The normative ethicist, rather than
being a football player, is more like a referee who sets up the rules
governing how the game is played. It is the branch of ethics that
investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one
ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-
ethics because normative ethics examines standards for the rightness
and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of
moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts.

Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter

is an empirical investigation of people's moral beliefs. To put it
another way, descriptive ethics would be concerned with determining
what proportion of people believe that killing is always wrong, while
normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a
belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive,
rather than descriptive.

There are disagreements about what precisely gives an action, rule,

or disposition its ethical force.

There are three competing views on how moral questions

should be answered,

1. Virtue ethics;
2. deontological ethics; and
3. consequentialism.

The former focuses on the character of those who are acting. In

contrast, both deontological ethics and consequentialism focus on
the status of the action, rule, or disposition itself, and come in
various forms.

1. Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics, advocated by Aristotle with some aspects being

supported by Saint Thomas Aquinas, focuses on the inherent
character of a person rather than on specific actions. There has
been a significant revival of virtue ethics in the past half-century,
through the work of such philosophers as G. E. M. Anscombe,
Philippa Foot, Alasdair Macintyre, Mortimer J. Adler, Jacques
Maritain, Yves Simon, and Rosalind Hursthouse.

2. Deontological ethics
 Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the
factors of one's duties and one's rights. Some deontological
theories include:

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, which roots morality in

humanity's rational capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral
laws.
The contractualism of John Rawls, which holds that the moral acts
are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased, behind a
"veil of ignorance."
Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke or Robert Nozick,
which hold that human beings have absolute, natural rights.

3. Consequentialism

Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action is

contingent on the action's outcome or result. Consequentialist
theories, varying in what they consider to be valuable (i.e.,
axiology), include:

Utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it leads to the most

happiness for the greatest number of people. Prior to the coining
of the term "consequentialism" by G. E. M. Anscombe in 1958 and
the adoption of that term in the literature that followed,
utilitarianism was the generic term for consequentialism, referring
to all theories that promoted maximizing any form of utility, not just
those that promoted maximizing happiness.

2) Applied ethics

o is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to

real-life situations.
o refers to the practical application of moral considerations

The discipline has many specialized fields, such as engineering

ethics, bioethics, geo-ethics, public service ethics and business ethics.

It is the study of how we should act in specific areas of our lives; how we
should deal with issues like meat-eating, euthanasia or stealing (to use
examples familiar to this textbook). To use the football analogy, the
applied ethicist kicks the philosophical football around just as a footballer
kicks the ball on the field might score goals and be successful by offering
specific arguments that convince us to change our moral views in a
particular corner of our lives.

Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy, as

well as by individuals facing difficult decisions. The sort of questions
addressed by applied ethics include: “Is getting an abortion immoral?”;
"Is euthanasia immoral?"; "Is affirmative action right or wrong?"; "What
are human rights, and how do we determine them?"; "Do animals have
rights as well?"; and "Do individuals have the right of self-determination?"
 Particular fields of application

 Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by

advances in biology and medicine.
 These developments include cloning, gene therapy,
human genetic engineering, and even the issue of
abortion or euthanasia.
 Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied
ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles
and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business
environment, including fields like medical ethics.
 Political ethics (also known as political morality or public
ethics) is the practice of making moral judgements about
political action and political agents.

 ASSUMPTIONS OF ETHICS

Ethics has two basic assumptions:

One, that man is a rational being,

Two, that man is free.

These basic assumptions affect the degree of our moral

responsibility.

The two object of the Ethics:

One, the physical object of the doer of the act, and

Two, the non physical object or the act done by the doer.

____FREDDIE R. COLLADA____
Instructor 1