[Paleopsych] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Ethics
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Mon May 2 16:22:53 UTC 2005
Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Metaphysical%20Issues:%20Objectivism%20and%20Relativism
2003
The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves
systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong
behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into
three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come
from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they
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 ethical judgments, and the
meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more
practical task, which is to arrive at moral 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 behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics
involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion,
infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality,
capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of
metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to
resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between
metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For
example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it
involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also
depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of
self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for
determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on
metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what
kind of beings have rights?"
_________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents (Clicking on the links below will take you to
that part of this article)
* [2]Metaethics
* [3]Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism
* [4]Psychological Issues in Metaethics
* [5]Egoism and Altruism
* [6]Emotion and Reason
* [7]Male and Female Morality
[8]Normative Ethics
* [9]Virtue Theories
* [10]Duty Theories
* [11]Consequentialist Theories
* [12]Types of Utilitarianism
* [13]Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
[14]Applied Ethics
* [15]Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
* [16]Issues in Applied Ethics
[17]References and Further Reading
_________________________________________________________________
Metaethics
The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion
of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire
project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin
and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and
applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined
area of moral philosophy. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1)
metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently
of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying
mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.
[18]Back to Table of Contents
Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism
"Metaphysics" is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the
universe. Some things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such
as rocks; and perhaps other things are nonphysical in nature, such as
thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics
involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal
truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions.
There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take,
one other-worldly and one this-worldly. Proponents of the
other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective in
the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective
human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal,
in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as
they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout
time. The most dramatic example of this view is Plato, who was
inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at numbers and
mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless
concepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the universe.
Humans do not invent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato
explained the eternal character of mathematics by stating that they
are abstract entities that exist in a spirit-like realm. He noted that
moral values also are absolute truths and thus are also abstract,
spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are
spiritual objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral
principles together under the heading of "eternal law" which were also
frequently seen as spirit-like objects. 17^th century British
philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as spirit-like relationships
rather than spirit-like objects. In either case, though, they exist in
a sprit-like realm. A different other-worldly approach to the
metaphysical status of morality is divine commands issuing from God's
will. Sometimes called voluntarism, this view was inspired by the
notion of an all-powerful God who is in control of everything. God
simply wills things, and they become reality. He wills the physical
world into existence, he wills human life into existence and,
similarly, he wills all moral values into existence. Proponents of
this view, such as medieval philosopher William of Ockham, believe
that God wills moral principles, such as "murder is wrong," and these
exist in God's mind as commands. God informs humans of these commands
by implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in
scripture.
The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status
of morality follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as
that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the
objective status of moral values. Technically skeptics did not reject
moral values themselves, but only denied that values exist as
spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral
values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that
has since been called moral relativism. There are two distinct forms
of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which holds
that individual people create their own moral standards. Friedrich
Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates his or her
morality distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system
of the masses. The second is cultural relativism which maintains that
morality is grounded in the approval of ones society and not simply in
the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by
Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William
Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism,
this-worldly approaches to the metaphysical status of morality deny
the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that
moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time
and throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their
position by citing examples of values that differ dramatically from
one culture to another, such as attitudes about polygamy,
homosexuality and human sacrifice.
[19]Back to Table of Contents
Psychological Issues in Metaethics
A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our
moral judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates
us to be moral. We might explore this subject by asking the simple
question, "Why be moral?" Even if I am aware of basic moral standards,
such as dont kill and dont steal, this does not necessarily mean that
I will be psychologically compelled to act on them. Some answers to
the question Why be moral? are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to
attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society.
[20]Back to Table of Contents
Egoism and Altruism
One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent
selfishness of humans. 17^th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes
held that many, if not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish
desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to
charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing
power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism and
maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human
actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called
psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific
driving force behind all of our actions. 18^th century British
philosopher Joseph Butler agreed that instinctive selfishness and
pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler argued that we
also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to
others. This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that
at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.
[21]Back to Table of Contents
Emotion and Reason
A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the
role of reason in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make
the statement abortion is morally wrong, am I making a rational
assessment or only expressing my feelings? On the one side of the
dispute, 18^th century British philosopher David Hume argued that
moral assessments involve our emotions, and not our reason. We can
amass all the reasons we want, but that alone will not constitute a
moral assessment. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to
make a moral pronouncement. Reason might be of service in giving us
the relevant data, but, in Hume's words, "reason is, and ought to be,
the slave of the passions." Inspired by Humes anti-rationalist views,
some 20th century philosophers, most notably A.J. Ayer, similarly
denied that moral assessments are factual descriptions. For example,
although the statement it is good to donate to charity may on the
surface look as though it is a factual description about charity, it
is not. Instead, a moral utterance like this involves two things.
First, I (the speaker) I am expressing my personal feelings of
approval about charitable donations and I am in essence saying "Hooray
for charity!" This is called the emotive element insofar as I am
expressing my emotions about some specific behavior.
. Second, I (the speaker) am trying to get you to donate to charity
and am essentially giving the command, "Donate to charity!" This is
called the prescriptive element in the sense that I am prescribing
some specific behavior.
From Humes day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have
opposed these emotive theories of ethics and instead argued that moral
assessments are indeed acts of reason. 18^th century German
philosopher Immanuel Kant is a case in point. Although emotional
factors often do influence our conduct, he argued, we should
nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Instead, true moral action is
motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires. A
recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier, was proposed in
direct opposition to the emotivist and prescriptivist theories of Ayer
and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and
argumentation process that takes place when making moral choices. All
of our moral choices are, or at least can be, backed by some reason or
justification. If I claim that it is wrong to steal someone's car,
then I should be able to justify my claim with some kind of argument.
For example, I could argue that stealing Smith's car is wrong since
this would upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief
at risk of getting caught. According to Baier, then, proper moral
decision making involves giving the best reasons in support of one
course of action versus another.
[22]Back to Table of Contents
Male and Female Morality
A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a
distinctly female approach to ethics that is grounded in the
psychological differences between men and women. Discussions of this
issue focus on two claims: (1) traditional morality is male-centered,
and (2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which can be
shaped into a value theory. According to many feminist philosophers,
traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after
practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such as
acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing
societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and
government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid
systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties. Women, by
contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children
and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following,
and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman's experience
as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of morality would be
spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique
circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation
and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with
male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who
performs his required duty, but can remain distanced from and
unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it
is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a
replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral
systems.
[23]Back to Table of Contents
Normative Ethics
Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate
right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal
litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example
of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want
others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car,
then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to
feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people.
Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any
possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it
would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or
kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that
establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions.
Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or
a set of good character traits.
The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one
ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a
set of principles. Three strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue
theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist theories.
[24]Back to Table of Contents
Virtue Theories
Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following
precisely defined rules of conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't
steal." Presumably, I must learn these rules, and then make sure each
of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue theorists, however, place
less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stress the importance of
developing good habits of character, such as benevolence. Once I've
acquired benevolence, for example, I will then habitually act in a
benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest
normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in
ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in
particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage,
temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude,
generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to
advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we
should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as
cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue theory
emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are
developed in one's youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for
instilling virtues in the young.
Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which
regulate our emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings
of fear, I should develop the virtue of courage which allows me to be
firm when facing danger. Analyzing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle
argued that most virtues fall at a mean between more extreme character
traits. With courage, for example, if I do not have enough courage, I
develop the disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I have too
much courage I develop the disposition of rashness which is also a
vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the
perfect mean between extreme character traits. In fact, we need
assistance from our reason to do this. After Aristotle, medieval
theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with three Christian
ones, or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest in
virtue theory continued through the middle ages and declined in the
19^th century with the rise of alternative moral theories below. In
the mid 20^th century virtue theory received special attention from
philosophers who believed that more recent approaches ethical theories
were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and actions, rather
than on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre defended the
central role of virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are
grounded in and emerge from within social traditions.
[25]Back to Table of Contents
Duty Theories
Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human
beings, such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder.
Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of
obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological, from
the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of
our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called
nonconsequentialist since these principles are obligatory,
irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions.
For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it
results in some great benefit, such as financial savings. There are
four central duty theories.
The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel
Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings:
duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our
duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds: (1) a
theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and (2) a
practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God. Concerning
our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts: (1) duties of
the soul, which involve developing ones skills and talents, and (2)
duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might
through gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself. Concerning
our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute
duties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional
duties, which are the result of contracts between people. Absolute
duties are of three sorts: (1) avoid wronging others; (2) treat people
as equals, and (3) promote the good of others. Conditional duties
involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the
duty is to keep ones promises.
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most
generally, a right is a justified claim against another persons
behavior such as my right to not be harmed by you. Rights and duties
are related in such a way that the rights of one person implies the
duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of
$10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the
correlativity of rights and duties. The most influential early account
of rights theory is that of 17^th century British philosopher John
Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not
harm anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these
are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the
United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson
recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we
deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of
property, movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four
features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are
natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments.
Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country
to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the
same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap.
Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I ca not hand over my
rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery.
A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single
principle of duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have
moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one's talents,
and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is
a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular
duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls
the "categorical imperative." A categorical imperative, he argued, is
fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on
some personal desire that we have, for example, "If you want to get a
good job, then you ought to go to college." By contrast, a categorical
imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one's personal
desires, such as "You ought to do X." Kant gives at least four
versions of the categorical imperative, but one is especially direct:
Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. That is, we
should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as mere
instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions
toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to
charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the
inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as a
means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve
something else. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car
since I would be treating her as a means to my own happiness. The
categorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that
affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I
would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery.
Kant believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by
appealing to this single principle of duty.
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British
philosopher W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his
17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are
"part of the fundamental nature of the universe." However, Ross's list
of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral
convictions:
* Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
* Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
* Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
* Justice: the duty to recognize merit
* Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
* Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
* Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others
Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between
two conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my
neighbor's gun and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day,
in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun
so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of
fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty
of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not
return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of
these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima
facie duty. In this case, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my
actual duty and I should not return the gun.
[26]Back to Table of Contents
Consequentialist Theories
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing
the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist
normative theories, correct moral conduct is determined solely by a
cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences:
Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of
that action are more favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both
the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine
whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad
consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is
morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action
is morally improper. Consequentialist theories are sometimes called
teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the
end result of the action is the sole determining factor of its
morality.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18^th century by
philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by
appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or
long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive
feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable
consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more
precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular,
competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for
affected groups of people are relevant. Three subdivisions of
consequentialism emerge:
Ethical Egoism:an action is morally right if the consequences of
that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent
performing the action.
Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of
that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except
the agent.
Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of
that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for
different groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the
above three theories are rivals of each other. They also yield
different conclusions. Consider the following example. A woman was
traveling through a developing country when she witnessed a car in
front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked
the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the
driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road
the driver explained that in his country if someone assists an
accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting person
responsible for the accident itself. If the victim dies, then the
assisting person could be held responsible for the death. The driver
continued explaining that road accident victims are therefore usually
left unattended and often die from exposure to the countrys harsh
desert conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism, the woman in
this illustration would only be concerned with the consequences of her
attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision
to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of
ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of
her action as others are affected, particularly the accident victim.
Tallying only those consequences reveals that assisting the victim
would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative
consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism,
she must consider the consequences for both herself and the victim.
The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would need to precisely
calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action.
[27]Back to Table of Contents
Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems
of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First,
Bentham proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we
perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an
action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Benthams theory is
known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we
tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For
Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in
determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Benthams
theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out
limitations in both of these aspects.
First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to
waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since
our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social
benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities
doesnt seem reasonable. More significantly, according to
act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be
morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed
the disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called
rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to
rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the
consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable
to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences
of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test
only for the morality of moral rules, such as stealing is wrong.
Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences
than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral
rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a
three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as
stealing my neighbors car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral
rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding
because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for
everyone. John Stuart Mills version of utilitarianism is
rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable
consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This,
though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally
significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful.
For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet
they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore
proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence
that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as
pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference
utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills
our preferences.
[28]Back to Table of Contents
Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
We have seen that Thomas Hobbes was an advocate of the methaethical
theory of psychological egoism the view that all of our actions are
selfishly motivated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a
normative theory known as social contract theory, which is a type of
rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely selfish reasons,
the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one
without moral rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to the
whims of other people's selfish interests. Our property, our families,
and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will
therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will
allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these rules would
include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However,
these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are
enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our
neighbors' property once their guards were down. Each agent would then
be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we
devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency
which punishes us if we violate these rules.
[29]Back to Table of Contents
Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis
of specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal
rights, or euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical issues have
been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics,
business ethics, environmental ethics, and sexual ethics. Generally
speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an
"applied ethical issue." First, the issue needs to be controversial in
the sense that there are significant groups of people both for and
against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for
example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that
this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun
control would be an applied ethical issue since there are significant
groups of people both for and against gun control.
The second requirement for in issue to be an applied ethical issue is
that it must be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media
presents us with an array of sensitive issues such as affirmative
action policies, gays in the military, involuntary commitment of the
mentally impaired, capitalistic vs. socialistic business practices,
public vs. private health care systems, or energy conservation.
Although all of these issues are controversial and have an important
impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues
of social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given
society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws,
tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more
universally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid lying, and
are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social
policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially
prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often
distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity
is immoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies
regulating sexual conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity.
Similarly, some social policies forbid residents in certain
neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors
are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident
having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as
an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere
social policy: it must be morally relevant as well.
In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy.
With the issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its
morality by consulting our normative principle of choice, such as
act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces greater benefit than
disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally
acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps
hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of
which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative
ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from using a single
decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific issue.
The usual solution today to this stalemate is to consult several
representative normative principles on a given issue and see where the
weight of the evidence lies.
[30]Back to Table of Contents
Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is
itself a challenging task. The principles selected must not be too
narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism that might focus
only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles must also be
seen as having merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical
issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duty to God are not
usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged
in the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly
appealed to in applied ethical discussions:
* Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action
produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.
* Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces
beneficial consequences for society.
* Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
* Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best
interests when they cannot do so themselves.
* Principle of harm: do not harm others.
* Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
* Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
* Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her
actions or physical body.
* Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process,
fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of
benefits.
* Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information,
privacy, free expression, and safety.
The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative
principles and are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based
approaches. The first two principles, personal benefit and social
benefit, are consequentialist since they appeal to the consequences of
an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining
principles are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, paternalism,
harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we have toward
others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights
are based on moral rights.
An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an
applied ethical discussion. In 1982 a couple from Bloomington, Indiana
gave birth to a severely retarded baby. The infant, known as Baby Doe,
also had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable
to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was
correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a
severely retarded child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and
water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents' decision,
and six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been
performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery
derive from the infant's right to life and the principle of
paternalism which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests
of others when they are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments
against corrective surgery derive from the personal and social
disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If Baby Doe survived,
its quality of life would have been poor and in any case it probably
would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent's perspective,
Baby Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional and
financial burden. When examining both sides of the issue, the parents
and the courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were
stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery
appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, given the poor
quality of life it would endure. Second, the status of Baby Doe's
right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant's mental
impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely
having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present.
The issue here involves what is often referred to as moral personhood,
and is central to many applied ethical discussions.
[31]Back to Table of Contents
Issues in Applied Ethics
As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists
today, some of which will be briefly mentioned here. Biomedical ethics
focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings. Health
care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with
life and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical
ethics issues are more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied
ethics. Prenatal issues arise about the morality of surrogate
mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses, the status of unused
frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about patient rights
and physician's responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the
patient's records and the physician's responsibility to tell the truth
to dying patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the specific issues of
the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether
physicians can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues
concern medical experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary
commitment, and the rights of the mentally retarded. Finally, end of
life issues arise about the morality of suicide, the justifiability of
suicide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia.
The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to
the social responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the
moral status of corporate entities, deceptive advertising, insider
trading, basic employee rights, job discrimination, affirmative
action, drug testing, and whistle blowing. Issues in environmental
ethics often overlaps with business and medical issues. These include
the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation,
preserving endangered species, pollution control, management of
environmental resources, whether eco-systems are entitled to direct
moral consideration, and our obligation to future generations.
Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy vs. polygamy,
sexual relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital
affairs. Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine
capital punishment, nuclear war, gun control, the recreational use of
drugs, welfare rights, and racism.
[32]Back to Table of Contents
References and Further Reading
Anscombe,Elizabeth Modern Moral Philosophy (1958), Philosophy, 1958,
Vol. 33, reprinted in her Ethics, Religion and Politics (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1981).
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, in Barnes, Jonathan, ed., The Complete
Works of Aristotle (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1984).
Ayer, A. J., Language, Truth and Logic (New York: Dover Publications,
1946).
Bentham, Jeremy, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789), in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, edited by John
Bowring (London: 1838-1843).
Hare, R.M., Moral Thinking, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).
Hare, R.M., The Language of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1952).
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed., E. Curley, (Chicago, IL: Hackett
Publishing Company, 1994).
Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), eds. David Fate
Norton, Mary J. Norton (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press,
2000).
Kant, Immanuel, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, tr, James W.
Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985).
Locke, John, Two Treatises, ed., Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1963).
MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue, second edition, (Notre Dame: Notre
Dame University Press, 1984).
Mackie, John L., Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, (New York: Penguin
Books, 1977).
Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, in Collected Works of John Stuart
Mill, ed., J.M. Robson (London: Routledge and Toronto, Ont.:
University of Toronto Press, 1991).
Moore, G.E., Principia Ethica, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1903).
Noddings, Nel, Ethics from the Stand Point Of Women, in
Deborah L. Rhode, ed., Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990).
Ockham, William of, Fourth Book of the Sentences, tr. Lucan Freppert,
The Basis of Morality According to William Ockham (Chicago: Franciscan
Herald Press, 1988).
Plato, Republic, 6:510-511, in Cooper, John M., ed., Plato: Complete
Works (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997).
Samuel Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1762), tr. Of the Law of
Nature and Nations.
Samuel Pufendorf, De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem
(1673), tr., The Whole Duty of Man according to the Law of Nature
(London, 1691).
Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, trs. J. Annas and J. Barnes,
Outlines of Scepticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Stevenson, Charles L., The Ethics of Language, (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1944).
Sumner, William Graham, Folkways (Boston: Guinn, 1906).
[33]Back to Table of Contents
_________________________________________________________________
Author Information:
James Fieser
Email: [34]jfieser at utm.edu
HomePage: [35]http://www.utm.edu/~jfieser/
References
1. http://www.iep.utm.edu/
2. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Metaethics
3. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Metaphysical Issues:
Objectivism and Relativism
4. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Psychological Issues in
Metaethics
5. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Egoism and Altruism
6. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Emotion and Reason
7. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Male and Female Morality
8. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Normative Ethics
9. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Virtue Theories
10. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Duty Theories
11. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Consequentialist Theories
12. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Types of Utilitarianism
13. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Ethical Egoism and Social
Contract Theory
14. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Applied Ethics
15. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Normative Principles in
Applied Ethics
16. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Issues in Applied Ethics
17. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#References and Further
Reading
18. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
19. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
20. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
21. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
22. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
23. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
24. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
25. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
26. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
27. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
28. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
29. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
30. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
31. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
32. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
33. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#top
34. mailto:jfieser at utm.edu?subject=Loved%20Your%20Ethics%20Article!
35. http://www.utm.edu/~jfieser/
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list