Ethics: Basic Concepts & Issues

• Here are your study notes

Ethics: Basic Concepts & Issues

• Morality is the standards individuals or societies use to determine if an act is good or bad and whether someone is virtuous
• Ethics examines the moral standards of individuals/society, it is sometimes called moral philosophy.

3 General Areas of Ethics

• Metaethics explores the nature, meaning, scope, and foundations of moral values including questions like: Is morality objective or relative?
• Normative Ethics formulates moral standards, rules, or principles that determine right from wrong conduct. Theories are classified into consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
• Applied Ethics examines particular moral issues in personal and social spheres in areas like business, medicine, law, and sports

Descriptive Ethics

• It is an area of ethics that is a non-philosophical study of morality. It objectively records how people in a community make moral judgments
• Disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and psychology can be used to perform descriptive ethics

Normative Nature of Moral Statements

• Moral statements are normative or prescriptive, not descriptive or factual
• Validation of normative statements requires appealing to certain standards like concerning morality, aesthetics, grammar, legality, and etiquette

Moral Standards and Other Normative Standards

• Moral standards can be confused with other normative standards such as standards of etiquette, legal standards, and religious standards

Characteristics of Moral Standards

• Moral standards deal with matters that can seriously harm or benefit human beings
• Moral standards have universal validity meaning if it is morally wrong for one person to do something, then it is wrong for anyone
• Moral standards have a particularly overriding importance to evaluate even correctness of other normative standards
• Moral standards are not established by authoritarian bodies, nor are they determined by appealing to consensus or tradition.

Ethical Relativism

• It states that all moral principles are valid relative to society or individual, there should be an understanding of the differences from Ethical Skepticism and Ethical Objectivism

Ethical Skepticism and Ethical Objectivism

• Ethical Skepticism states that there are no valid moral principles
• Ethical Objectivism states that there are universally valid moral principles that bind all people

Two Forms of Ethical Relativism

• Individual Ethical Relativism /Ethical Subjectivism says the rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the individual's own commitments and interests, lacking an interpersonal basis for judgment
• Cultural Ethical Relativism /Ethical Conventionalism says the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society's norms, and that morality is social in nature

Arguments in Support of Ethical Relativism

• Ethical relativism is true since moral beliefs and rules vary from culture to culture or even within the same culture. (Diversity Argument)
• Perception is inescapably culture-bound, lacking any independent, non-cultural viewpoint, so moral beliefs can only be true or valid relative to certain groups. (Dependency Argument)
• Relativism acknowledges differences among societies in moral beliefs, leading to respect, social harmony, and peaceful co-existence (Toleration Argument)

Arguments Against Ethical Relativism

• Moral diversity or disagreement does not establish moral relativism since when two disagree, one might be correct while the other is wrong.
• Ethical relativism can lead to absurd outcomes, for instance, not permitting moral criticism, it becomes a matter of following social norms, so moral progress would be impossible
• Universal moral standards exist that respect life and promote truth, justice, and peace, despite varying beliefs/practices among cultures

Moral Personhood and Accountability

• Moral Persons are beings or entities having moral status or standing, appropriate objects of moral concern

Moral Standards

• Moral standards only apply to actions performed by moral persons, requiring a moral person to have have moral rights at minimum

Moral Rights

• All moral persons have moral rights but some have moral duties as well

Rights and Duties

• Rights are entitlements, meaning interests one can pursue or actions one can do, while duties are obligations
• Rights correlate with duties: one's rights impose duties on other people while one's duties are intended to respect the rights of other people
• Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions, while not performing duties will merit such

Classifying Rights

• Rights are classified according to the duties they impose (on others) and the manner of their acquisition.

Positive and Negative Rights

• Positive rights impose the duties of non-interference and provision in a person's exercise of rights. E.g., right to life and information
• Negative rights the duty of non-interference in a person's exercise of his/her rights. E.g., right to free speech

Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights

• Contractual rights are acquired upon entering an agreement or contract. Contractual rights may be formal or informal
• Legal rights are acquired through citizenship
• Moral rights are acquired upon becoming a moral person or upon possession of morally relevant qualities
• Human Rights are the moral rights of humans
• Animal Rights are the moral rights of animals.
• Machine Rights, the moral rights of intelligent and fully autonomous machines (?)

Moral Agents & Patients

• Moral persons can be the sources or receivers of moral concern or evaluable actions are moral agent or moral patients

Moral Agents

• Moral agents act as sources of morally evaluable actions, possessing both moral rights and duties
• They can be held morally accountable for their actions

Moral Patients

• Moral patients act as the receivers or recipients of morally evaluable actions, owning moral rights only, in which cannot be morally accountable for any actions

Agentive Moral Persons

• Agentive Moral Persons refers to moral persons who can be both moral patients and agents
• E.g., normal human adults

Non-agentive Moral Persons

• Non-agentive Moral Persons refers to moral persons who can only be moral patients
• E.g., animals, mentally challenged humans, infants

Criteria for Moral Personhood

• General Classification of Theories of (Moral) Personhood consists of Uni-criterial, multi-criterial, and meta-criterial theories

Uni-criterial Theories

• It is a type of theories claiming that there is just one defining feature of moral personhood
• Genetic Theory states that moral persons are those possessing human DNA
• Life Theory states moral persons are those who are alive
• Rational Theory states moral persons are those with reason and will
• Sentient Theory states moral persons are those capable of experiencing pain or pleasure
• Relational Theory states moral persons are those in caring relationships

Multi-criterial Theories

• It is a type of theory claiming that there is more than one defining feature of moral personhood
• Multi-criterial Theories can involve both strict and liberal meanings
• Strict (or Conjunctive) Interpretation - a moral person possesses all features in the combination
• Liberal (or Disjunctive) Interpretation - a moral person possesses at least one of the features in the combination

Meta-criterial Theories

• It is a type of theory about nature of the defining features of moral personhood
• Social Theory refers to moral personhood being a social construct, where criteria are decided by society
• Gradient Theory says moral personhood comes in degrees, so certain entities have greater moral personhood than others/

Features of Moral Accountability

• Accountability, in general, is the natural product of a person's intelligence and freedom
• Moral Accountability refers to a person's deservingness of moral blame or praise for their actions
• Accountability and Responsibility are related; there are three senses of responsibility, one of which equates it with accountability

Three Types of Responsibility

• Responsibility as Accountability is where a responsible person is the one who deserves blame or praise for his/her actions
• Responsibility as Agency is where a responsible person is the one who does or causes the action. An agent is not necessarily accountable for his/her actions.
• Responsibility as Duty is where a responsible person is the one who does his/her duties or obligations

Moral and Legal Accountability Differences

• Moral accountability is based on moral principles
• Legal accountability is based on the laws of the government
• Sanctions for moral accountability are internal (shame, guilt, remorse, low self-esteem); sanctions for legal accountability are external

Conditions for Moral Accountability

• Attribution Conditions determine whether a person is morally accountable for their actions
• Degree Conditions determine the extent or gravity of a person's moral accountability

Excusing Conditions

• Incriminating conditions commit a person to moral accountability
• Excusing conditions excuse or absolve a person from moral accountability
• Agency: the person causes the action
• Knowledge: the person knows whether the action is good or bad
• Intentionality: the person is free to perform the action and intends to do it.
• Non-agency: the person does not cause the action
• Ignorance: the person does not know the morality of the action
• Non-intentionality: the person is not free to perform the action or does not intend to perform the action

Excusable and Non-excusable Ignorance

• Real/Blameless Ignorance is excusable; the ignorant person cannot be said to have known better
• Irresponsible/Blameful/Blameworthy Ignorance is non-excusable; the ignorant person can be said to have known better

Factors to Consider

• Relevant factors to consider include the ignorant person's mental and physical conditions, access to relevant information, and whether they had a duty to know the information

Degree Conditions

• Knowledge: The greater the knowledge, the greater the accountability; the lesser the knowledge, the lesser the accountability
• Pressure/Difficulty in Life: The greater the pressure, the lesser the accountability; the lesser the pressure, the greater the accountability
• Intensity of the Injury: The greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the accountability; the lesser the intensity of the injury, the lesser the accountability
• Degree of Involvement: The greater the involvement, the greater the accountability; the lesser the involvement, the lesser the accountability

Consequentialism

• Normative ethical theories are generally based on actions (a) leading to consequences, (b) following or violating rules, and (c) performed by agents with character traits

Consequentialism

• Consequences of actions are the fundamental morally relevant consideration in making moral judgments
• The action is good if it results in good consequences while bad if resulting in bad consequences
• Deontology the rule is good if action is done in conformity with a good rule, while it is bad if done in a bad rule
• Virtue Ethics refers to an action that is good if done by a virtuous person, while actions are morally bad from a person with bad traits

Inherent and Instrumental Good

• "Good consequences" in consequentialism refer to those promoting an inherent good: good in relation to another good is instrumental, while inherent good is is desired for its own sake.

General Divisions of Consequentialism

• 2 Considerations about Consequences in relation to hedonism: the only inherent good in pain is the only inherent bad. There are YES and NO consequences
• Hedonism/Hedonistic Consequentialism is if pleasure (or happiness) is the only inherent good (and pain the only inherent bad)
• Non-hedonism/Non-hedonistic Consequentialism is if pleasure (or happiness) is not the only inherent good (and pain the only inherent bad)
• Related to the agent: are the consequences to, or directly affecting the agent, the primary consideration?
• Agent-relative/Egoistic Consequentialism refers to consequences to the agent in the primary consideration
• Agent-neutral/Non-egoistic/Impartial Consequentialism refers to consequences that are not directly affecting the agent and are not on the primary,

Two General First Divisions of of Consequentialism

• Hedonism says pleasure is the only inherent good.
• Non-hedonism rejects hedonism in two ways meaning pleasure is not inherently good & is inherently good but there are others

Forms of Consequentialism - Agent-Neutral

• Consequentialism - the consequences to the agent are primary
• Agent-neutral consequentialism - the consequences that promote the greatest overall benefits of all affected persons are primary

Complex Forms of Consequentialism Combinations

• There is overlap in all two divisions of consequentialism, so they combine to comprise four complex types of consequentialism

Agent-relative hedonism

• Actions that promote the agent's own pleasure or happiness are good
• Agent-relative non-hedonism: An action is morally good if it promotes the agent's own intrinsic good, which does not necessarily correspond to pleasure.

Agent-neutral Hedonism and Non-Hedonism

• Agent-neutral Hedonism says it is morally good to maximize happiness of everyone affected
• Agent-neutral Non-Hedonism says it is morally good to maximize welfare of everyone affected

Utilitarianism

• It is the ethical theory which is best represented from impartial consequentialism, which also happens is the most influential form of consequentialism
• It also serves as representatives of the different forms of agent-neutral consequentialism

Basic Features of Utilitarianism

• Consequentialist - regards the consequences of actions as the primary consideration in the moral evaluation of actions
• Welfarist - Seeks to promote the welfare of persons
• Aggregationist - Seeks to maximize the overall welfare of all persons involved in an action

Forms Of Utilitarianism

• Should overall welfare only involve pleasure (or happiness)? Yes - that is Hedonistic Utilitarianism, No - that is Non-hedonistic Utilitarianism
• Should the utilitarian principle be applied directly to actions or to the rules governing these actions?
• To the actions - Act Utilitarianism
• The overall wellness to be maximized in performing actions is based on pleasure or happiness

Hedonistic Utilitarianism Question

• Is there is a qualitative difference between physical and mental pleasures?
• Quantitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism says No there is no qualitative difference, only quantitative
• Qualitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism says value or quality of mental pleasures is greater than physical pleasures because they require reason

Hedonistic Calculus

• It is a systematic method by Bentham for calculating the quantity of pleasures
• Calculating quantitiy is the calculation that consider these Factors
• Intensity of engagement with pleasure, more intense engagements = more value
• Duration of engaging of pleasure, longer engaging = more value
• Certianty - the higher chance you're pleasure will occur the better
• Propinquity (remoteness) - shorter time between act and pleasure increase value
• Fecundity - sensations such as pleasure or pain increase the probability that a future one occur, increasing value
• Extent- Number of persons to experience the pleasure, the greater the value of the pleasure

Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism

• Overall wellness from actions is not for pleaseure of limited
• Pluralistic Utilitarianism - says worth exists with pursing and has value in the resgardless of whether it'll be pleasurable or not
• Preference Utilitarianism - says desire/preference-satisfaction is more fundamental than the experience of pleasure, as we sometimes prefer to satisfy our desires/preferences even if it would lead to experience of pain

Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism

• Act Utilitarianism - The consequences of an act are key
• Rule Utilitarianism - is the consequences of following/or violating the key
• Standard utilitarianism is with the rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism, to deal with challenging cases to act in morality