I. SOME BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
1. What is philosophical ethics?
Philosophical ethics includes two different domains. The first is what is generally called "prescriptive ethics," which is the examination of alternative moral values, principles, and conduct, and the recommendation of some values, principles, or conduct as more rational or humane. Prescriptive ethics seeks to answer the question, "How should the moral person behave?" This domain or task has been prominent in philosophy for over two millennia--at least as far back as Socrates (c.469 399 b.c.).
The second domain of philosophical ethics is called "metaethics." It is a more recent phenomenon and has received its primary attention in this century. Metaethics is the examination of the logic and language of moral reflection, moral discourse, and moral action. The person doing metaethics does not make recommendations on how people should behave but rather seeks to gain insight on the nature of moral terms, on the logical structure and interrelatedness of moral assertions, and the like. Any recommendation offered by the metaethician would be on how we ought to view and use moral discourse. Metaethics seeks to answer the question, "What is the nature of moral discourse?" The reading by Ayer is an example of metaethics.
Philosophical ethics seeks to establish positions not by empirical methods (observation or experimentation), extra-rational approaches (revelation or magic), or non-rational strategies (dogmatism or tradition). Philosophical ethics is based on the careful rational scrutiny of alternative positions and theories. The philosopher looks for such things as inner consistency, coherence with other strong theoretical positions, usefulness in application, and correspondence with relevant data. The philosopher brings all of the techniques and strategies of logic to bear on his or her study.
2. How does philosophical ethics differ from other approaches to ethics?
Social scientists generally approach ethics in a more descriptive fashion. Such people are more interested in describing the moral behavior of individuals or societies and in explaining why they behave in that way. In general, social scientists shy away from recommending a value system or a mode of behavior, but when such people do make these recommendations (as at times such people as Carl Rogers and B. F. Skinner do), they are really entering the domain of philosophical ethics.
Educational theorists may explore how some aspect of morality can be or should be taught. Sometimes this involves the recommendation of particular values or ethical positions, and sometimes it does not. While philosophers like Plato have explored the issue of teaching ethics, this is normally an issue separate from the philosophical examination of ethics. The moral educator would often make use of philosophical ethics, whether carefully or carelessly, before going to the next step of moral education.
Religionists often develop moral theories and make moral judgments, but they would normally make some use of revelation in this. Philosophers would confine themselves to the use of reason alone. In addition, as they do philosophy, philosophers seek to employ an open mindedness which gives full consideration to a full range of positions and is not concerned to foster a particular religion or religious position. One of the most important goals of philosophy is intellectual honesty and integrity.
Legislators, law enforcement officials, lawyers, and others establish or deal with a society's laws. While there is an interesting and complex relationship between the law and morality, they are also distinct. There are actions judged normally to be immoral that would not usually be considered illegal (such as parents lying to their children) or vice versa (such as starting on a house without first obtaining a permit or using an unlicensed car for an emergency trip to the hospital when it is the only car available). Indeed, some legal theorists speak strongly against "legislating morality." Nevertheless, like the moral educator, the legislator and lawyer may make use of philosophical ethics in establishing or interpreting the law.
3. Is it possible to judge some moral positions or theories as better than others?
A view which is fairly common in academic circles but rejected by most philosophers as rationally unsound is moral or ethical relativism- the view that moral values, principles, and conduct vary significantly and that there are no firm criteria for judging one form of them to be better than or superior to another. This position may take the form either of societal or cultural relativism (that morality varies from culture to culture and that there is no basis for judging superiority between them) or individual subjectivism (that morality varies from individual to individual and that there is no basis for judging between them). There are three main arguments given for ethical relativism. I will here present them and offer brief responses.
First, it is sometimes argued that since the moral values and systems of cultures do in fact vary or since those of individuals do in fact vary, this shows that it is quite appropriate that they do vary; there are no over arching values or principles that they share, so there is no way to judge one over against the other. It is often replied to this that because something is a certain way does not provide an argument for saying that it should be that way. Moreover, it seems reasonable to claim that a position which espouses racism, sexism, or the brutal treatment of other individuals or societies is inferior to a position that espouses the opposite, but true relativism would not accept this claim.
Second, it is often argued that relativism is correct because there are no absolute values or standards by which one can judge various systems. But often we make a relative judgment that something is better than something else without having an absolute standard to use in the judging. Thus, we may claim that broiled turkey is a more healthful food to eat than fried bacon is even though we don't have an absolute standard of what constitutes a healthful food. Our present knowledge of food and health indicates that factors which are involved in judging healthful foods include presence of vitamins, minerals, protein, etc. and the absence of cholesterol and fat, but this knowledge is constantly being modified. In the same way one might say that our present knowledge of ethics allows us to judge value systems or conduct on the basis of whether they respect the right of others, promote happiness, and promote truth and beauty, but this is also being modified. Thus, we don't need an absolute set of values to evaluate something; what is needed is a set of criteria which is developing through critical examination and reflection.
Third, it is sometimes thought that if a person is tolerant, this requires one to be relativistic. But tolerance requires rather that one not force views on another person. A person may be tolerant (and open minded) but still believe that some positions are better than others. Such a person would be tolerant if he or she respected the right of another person to make his or her own choices on moral issues. (It might also be noted that a true relativist would not think there is a basis for finding tolerance morally preferable to intolerance.)
II. SOME BASIC ETHICAL THEORIES
1. Utilitarianism
Classic utilitarianism was developed by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) on the basis of the political theories of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), a close friend of Mill's father. Mill wrote Utilitarianism in order to defend Bentham's position against a number of attacks, but in the process he developed it into a significant moral theory.
The basic principle of utilitarianism is that an act is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it promotes unhappiness. Happiness is defined by Mill as the preponderance of pleasure over pain (hedonism). Usually Mill's principle is interpreted to mean that when one considers all of the people who might be affected by an action, that action is right if it promotes more happiness than unhappiness.
This theory is a clear case of a "teleological ethic," i.e., what is important for judging moral rightness or wrongness is the consequences of an action.
Some questions which you might want to consider in mind as you reflect on this theory are:
2. Rule Deontology
A rule deontology is a moral theory which asserts that there are rules we can know which tell one what is right and what is wrong. Praiseworthy action would be action obedient to these rules. Defining morality in terms of the 10 commandments or in terms of the golden rule would be examples of rule deontologies.
The primary example of a philosophical rule deontology is the moral theory of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in which the key rule is the "categorical imperative." Kant believed that all humans are rational beings capable of knowing the categorical imperative and of applying it to various situations. This rule, he believed, is necessary and universal--it is totally binding on all rational beings. It is as much a basic rule or law of rationality as is the law of contradiction (that a statement and its negation cannot both be entirely true in the same way at the same time).
Kant gave this imperative in a number of forms but basically it means that morally right action is action that one can consistently will that all people would do automatically (as if it were a law of nature). Thus, it would be wrong to lie to a person about an illness the individual has unless I could will that all people would always lie to others about whether the other person was ill. It would be wrong to cheat on a test unless I could will that all people would always cheat on tests.
Kant's ethic is clearly very demanding. In keeping with this, he insisted that the person who does what is right (what the categorical imperative demands) is not necessarily being moral; an individual is acting in a moral way only if he or she does what is right solely because it is right, i.e., because it is what the categorical imperative demands. The individual who is honest in business because he or she thinks it will improve business, for example, is not acting morally. To be moral a person would have to be honest in business solely because it is right to be honest in business.
Some questions you might want to ask here:
3. Ethical Egoism
The ancient philosopher Epicurus (c.342-270 b.c.) is often used as an example of ethical egoism. Typically, ethical egoism is hedonistic (happiness being defined as the preponderance of pain over pleasure), and the ethical egoist asserts that an act is right as it promotes the agent's own happiness. Thus, I would be doing something right if my action would promote my happiness.
Epicurus was in fact fairly subtle as he developed this. Many actions which might look at first like they would bring pleasure to the agent turn out in the end to bring considerable pain. Thus, it might look like I would benefit if I could take advantage of someone else, but this might very likely lead me to be fearful of revenge, etc., so it really wouldn't promote my long-range happiness. Bodily pleasures like drinking or eating when carried to excess could also bring pain and suffering. Thus, Epicurus developed a position which advocated a somewhat restrained life in which one would try to limit desires so as to avoid disappointment and pain.
Some questions which you might wish to ask of such a theory:
4. Eudaemonism
Eudaemonism is a fancy word which comes from the Greek word which means well-being. The theory is traceable to Aristotle (384-322 b.c.) and is based upon his emphasis on full human development.
For Aristotle anything that is "good" is a thing which functions well according to its highest purposes and capacities--according to its highest ends. Thus, a good oak tree is one that grows tall and straight with a strong root system, a solid trunk, and rich foliage. A good scissors is one which effectively cuts paper and the other things that a scissors should be able to cut.
For Aristotle the highest purposes and capacities of a human would be unique to humans--they would not be things shared, for example, with animals. Thus, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain could not be the highest purpose or capacity for a human.
Aristotle associated these highest purposes and capacities in human beings with rational capacity. This is what distinguishes a human being from all other creatures. Thus, a "good person" is one in whom this rational capacity is developed to the fullest.
According to Aristotle, a fully rational person would use reason to guide conduct. In general, Aristotle believed, reason would guide one so that actions would fall in the "golden mean" between two extremes. Thus, a courageous action would fall between cowardice and foolhardiness, a courteous action between rudeness and obsequiousness, etc. The precise mean will vary from person to person (it depends upon talents and the like) and from situation to situation. Reason also helps us to determine the precise mean for particular situations based on the assessment of all relevant factors.
Some of the questions you may want to consider in connection with this topic are:
Existential ethics or existentialist ethics is really a 20th-century phenomenon and is usually traced to Jean-Paul Sartre (l905-l980) although there are other forms developed by other thinkers. It is a theory which emphasizes the overwhelming responsibility that goes with the freedom to make moral choices. Sartre emphasizes that we are free in the most profound and terrifying ways possible. We must make choices which make and reveal our values, and in so doing we are actually shaping our own character. What is terrifying about this is that we must make such choices without the benefit of any real guidelines. We must decide for ourselves how we are going to shape ourselves.
Sartre rejected the notion that there are any real helps for us as we make our crucial choices. Because we are free, he argued, there cannot be a God who has a plan for us or who can guide us. If there were such a being, we could simply follow the guidance of this God, but in the process we would be giving up our real freedom and our responsibility.
People generally shy away from facing the full import of what it means to be free because it is so burdensome. But when we do not accept and use our full freedom for what it is, we are not being genuinely human.
Some questions you may wish to pose:
6. Moral Pragmatism
Although there are several pragmatists that have dealt with ethics, the most prominent figure is that of John Dewey (1859-l952). Dewey was a significant thinker in many arenas--as a philosopher of education, he espoused active problem-solving by the learner as the only genuine learning activity; as a social/political philosopher, he encouraged free and open experimentation with new social plans and institutions as the path by which a democracy can improve its society; as a moral philosopher, he spoke against dogmatism and fixed moral positions.
Dewey suggested that people should examine alternative moral positions and actually try them to see which serves them best in a practical way. He was as much against ivory-tower theorizing as he was against dogmatism. Genuine thinking is always thinking that is helpful to us in solving problems, and this also includes the moral problems we face.
Thus Dewey did not advocate a particular set of values or of moral principles. Instead he proposed a way, the "scientific way," of exploring and experimenting with alternative positions to see which serves us best in a practical way.
You may want to include the following questions in your reflections on this position:
7. Emotivism
A. J. Ayer's (l910- ) work in ethics and in other fields grew out of the movement which began in the late l920's called Logical Positivism. The group of thinkers behind this movement (a group which included Wittgenstein, Carnap, and many other significant people) was composed of intellectuals who were primarily schooled in the natural sciences and mathematics. They were interested in examining "softer" disciplines to see why those disciplines couldn't meet the rigid standards for truth established in the natural sciences and mathematics.
In the end they concluded that the only assertions that are really capable of being considered true or false are assertions that can be tested in one of two ways. Either a precise test of logic (basically, the law of contradiction) must show that an assertion is true or false, or a precise empirical test (sense experience) must show that an assertion is true or false.
All assertions which do not pass one of these tests are not really meaningful statements; they are "pseudo-statements." And among the pseudo-statements emotivists like Ayer placed moral assertions. Moral claims, in their view, do not say anything that could possibly be true or false. Rather, they express the attitudes or feelings of the speaker (just as cheers and jeers do), and they might also seek to arouse the same attitudes and feelings in the listener.
Some of the questions you may want to consider are: