1AY2425 GEC8 Ch. 2 Theories, Philosophy, and Ethics.pdf

1 CHAPTER 2 2 Theory, Philosophy, and Ethics 3 4 "Ethics is the branch of philosophy in which the most general, the most 5 universal, problems are treated. It deals with the questions of right and 6 wrong, and th...

1 CHAPTER 2 2 Theory, Philosophy, and Ethics 3 4 "Ethics is the branch of philosophy in which the most general, the most 5 universal, problems are treated. It deals with the questions of right and 6 wrong, and the reasons that make things right or wrong." 7 Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) 8 9 INTRODUCTION 10 11 You have learned from the previous chapter the nature of science and how 12 ethics being one of the subbranches of science is significant in humankind's 13 progress. In this chapter, you will know what theories are and appreciate ethics as 14 a branch of philosophy. 15 16 Theory, philosophy, and ethics are deeply interconnected. Theory as a 17 product of scientific research serves as framework for understanding philosophy 18 and ethics. Philosophy provides the foundation for systematic theorizing and 19 critical examination of the nature of existence. Ethical theories, as a branch of 20 philosophy, offer structured approaches to moral reasoning and decision-making. 21 Together, they contribute to a comprehensive understanding of human thought, 22 behavior, and values. 23 24 LEARNING OBJECTIVES 25 By the end of this chapter, you are expected to be able to: 26 1. Define theories and explain their nature and purpose; 27 2. Understand the nature and purpose of philosophy in connection to ethics 28 and other social sciences; and 29 3. Know the overview of the framework of ethical theories. 30 31 THEORIES 32 33 Definition of theory 34 Let’s examine the following definitions taken verbatim from Mirriam Webster 35 (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory): 36 37 1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of 38 principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light 39 2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 40 her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 1  1 b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often 2 used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for 3 all 4 3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation 5 b : an unproved assumption : conjecture 6 c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory 7 of equations 8 4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music 9 theory 10 5 : abstract thought : speculation 11 6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 12 13 As a product of science, a theory is a statement that is composed of at least 14 two propositions about the world or existence and how these propositions relate 15 to each other. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the subject 16 being studied, be it the natural or the social world, that incorporate laws, hypotheses and 17 facts. It is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results 18 of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking is ideally 19 associated with the application of the scientific method or research. 20 21 NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THEORIES 22 23 Theories are conceptual and are made up of related observations. Theory 24 provides concepts to name what we observe and to explain relationships between 25 concepts. Theory allows us to explain what we see and to figure out how to bring 26 about change. Theory is a tool that enables us to identify a problem, make 27 predictions, and to plan a means for altering the situation. 28 29 Theories provide a framework for understanding human behavior, thought, 30 and development. By having a broad base of understanding about the how's and 31 why's of human behavior, we can better understand ourselves and others. 32 Each theory provides a context for understanding a certain aspect of human 33 behavior. Examples of this are the theories of personality, theories of learning, 34 and motivation. Behavioral theories provide a basis for understanding how 35 people learn new things. Through the lens of these theories, we can take a closer 36 look at some of the different ways that learning occurs as well as the factors that 37 influence this type of learning. 38 39 Theories create a basis for future research. Researchers use theories to form 40 hypotheses that can then be tested. As new discoveries are made and incorporated 41 into the original theory, new questions and ideas can then be explored. 42 43 Theories are dynamic and always changing. As new discoveries are made, 44 theories are modified and adapted to account for new information. While theories 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 2  1 are sometimes presented as static and fixed, they tend to evolve over time as new 2 research is explored. 3 4 TYPES OF THEORIES 5 6 Theories tend to fall into one of a few different types. 7 Grand theories attempt to describe many aspects of the human experience. 8 Examples include Freud’s psychoanalytic theory (1899); Erikson’s 9 psychosocial theory (1950); Talcott Parson’s structural functionalist 10 theory(1937); Darwin’s theory of natural selection(1859); 11 Mini-theories, on the other hand, focus on describing just a narrow range 12 of behaviors. Examples of these are Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance 13 Theory (1957); John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth’s Attachment Theory 14 (1969); and Albert Bandura Social Learning Theory (1977); 15 Emergent theories are those that are newer and often involve combining 16 different aspects of various mini-theories. Examples of these theories are: 17 Vygotsky's sociocultural theory (1934,1978); Hoftstede’s 6 Dimensions of 18 Culture Theory (2011); and Bruno Latour, Michel Callon Actor-Network 19 Theory (ANT) (1987 20 21 Theories can be classified into different classes based on their scope, focus, 22 and level of abstraction. Descriptive are distinguished from normative theories in 23 that the former describes, the latter prescribes what out to be. Explanatory 24 Theories focus on explaining why certain phenomena occur. They provide an 25 understanding of the underlying causes or mechanisms behind observed events. 26 Predictive Theories aim to predict future events or behaviors based on current or 27 past data. They are often used to forecast outcomes in various scenarios. 28 Deductive Theories start with general principles or axioms and derive specific 29 predictions or explanations from them; they move from the general to the specific. 30 On the other hand, Inductive Theories are developed by observing specific 31 instances and formulating general principles or laws based on those observations. 32 They move from the specific to the general 33 34 ETHICAL THEORIES 35 36 Ethical theories are systematic frameworks that provide guidance on what 37 is morally right or wrong, good or bad, and how individuals ought to act in 38 various situations. They offer different approaches to understanding and 39 resolving moral dilemmas by focusing on principles, consequences, character, or 40 relationships. By establishing criteria for ethical decision-making, these theories 41 help individuals and societies navigate complex moral issues and justify their 42 actions based on rational, consistent reasoning. 43 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 3  1 Ethical theories are also varied in types and classes because they arise from 2 different philosophical perspectives, cultural contexts, historical developments, 3 and human experiences. This diversity reflects the complexity of moral reasoning, 4 where different approaches seek to address the multifaceted nature of ethical 5 dilemmas, human behavior, and societal norms. 6 7 Reasons for the Diversity of Ethical Theories 8 1. Different Foundational Beliefs: 9 o Ethical theories are grounded in various foundational beliefs about 10 what constitutes morality. For example, some theories emphasize the 11 consequences of actions (consequentialism), while others focus on 12 duties and rules (deontology), and others on virtues and character 13 (virtue ethics). These foundational differences lead to varied 14 approaches in determining what is morally right or wrong. 15 o Example: Utilitarianism (a consequentialist theory) argues that the 16 best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness. In contrast, 17 Kantian Ethics (a deontological theory) maintains that actions are 18 morally right if they adhere to a set of duties or rules, regardless of 19 the consequences. 20 2. Cultural and Historical Influences: 21 o Ethical theories have evolved in different cultural and historical 22 contexts, leading to distinct moral frameworks. For example, 23 Western ethical thought has been heavily influenced by Greek 24 philosophy, Christianity, and the Enlightenment, while Eastern 25 ethical thought draws on Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. 26 o Example: Confucian Ethics emphasizes the importance of family, 27 social harmony, and respect for tradition, rooted in ancient Chinese 28 culture. In contrast, Existentialist Ethics, emerging from European 29 philosophy in the 20th century, emphasizes individual freedom, 30 choice, and responsibility in a world perceived as inherently 31 meaningless. 32 3. Responses to Different Ethical Problems: 33 o Ethical theories often emerge as responses to specific moral problems 34 or challenges faced by society. Different problems require different 35 approaches, leading to the development of varied ethical theories. 36 o Example: Feminist Ethics developed as a response to the perceived 37 male bias in traditional ethical theories. It emphasizes the importance 38 of relationships, care, and the social context of moral decision- 39 making, which contrasts with the more abstract, principle-based 40 approaches of traditional ethics. 41 4. Philosophical Methodology: 42 o The methodologies used by philosophers to approach ethical 43 questions also contribute to the diversity of ethical theories. Some 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 4  1 theories are deductive, starting from general principles and applying 2 them to specific cases, while others are inductive, deriving principles 3 from specific moral experiences or observations. 4 o Example: Rawls’ Theory of Justice employs a deductive approach, 5 where principles of justice are derived from a hypothetical "original 6 position." On the other hand, Care Ethics often uses an inductive 7 approach, focusing on real-life moral experiences, particularly in 8 caregiving relationships, to derive ethical principles. 9 5. Focus on Different Aspects of Morality: 10 o Different ethical theories prioritize different aspects of morality, such 11 as the consequences of actions, the intentions behind actions, the 12 character of the moral agent, or the relationships between people. 13 This focus leads to the development of distinct types of ethical 14 theories. 15 o Example: Virtue Ethics focuses on the character and virtues of the 16 moral agent, asking "What kind of person should I be?" rather than 17 "What should I do?" This contrasts with Rule Utilitarianism, which 18 focuses on following rules that generally lead to the greatest good. 19 6. Complexity of Human Experience: 20 o Human life is complex, with a wide range of experiences, emotions, 21 relationships, and social structures. No single ethical theory can 22 capture all the nuances of moral life, leading to the development of 23 multiple theories that address different dimensions of ethical 24 experience. 25 o Example: Moral Relativism suggests that what is morally right or 26 wrong can vary depending on cultural or individual perspectives, 27 reflecting the complexity and diversity of human societies. In 28 contrast, Moral Absolutism argues that there are universal moral 29 principles that apply to all people, regardless of context. 30 31 32 PHILOSOPHY 33 34 Philosophy involves critical analysis and systematic reflection on life. It is 35 the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, 36 and reality. It involves critical thinking and systematic reasoning to explore 37 concepts and principles that underlie human thought and behavior. Ethics, a 38 branch of philosophy, specifically deals with questions of morality—what is right 39 and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust. Ethical theories, as part of ethics, are 40 philosophical frameworks that offer structured approaches to determining moral 41 principles and guiding ethical decision-making. Philosophy, therefore, provides 42 the intellectual foundation for ethical theories, helping to clarify, justify, and 43 challenge different moral perspectives. 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 5  1 Read and understand Bertrand Russel’s article, “On the Value of 2 Philosophy.” 3 4 ON THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY 5 Bertrand Russell 6 7 8 Philosophy, like other studies, aims at knowledge. But philosophers seek a special sort 9 of knowledge that eludes exact definition. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek 10 “philein,” to love or desire, “ and Sophia, “wisdom.” The philosophers, then, is a “lover of 11 wisdom.” Wisdom is knowledge in its broadest sense. It does not concern things that huddle on 12 the periphery of life. It is knowledge directed to the fundamental and pervasive concerns of 13 existence. To desire wisdom is to seek principles that cut through the superficial and trivial 14 facts that clutter our intellectual landscape, revealing the basic shape of things beneath. 15 Philosophy, as a quest for wisdom, is an attempt to provide a vision of the world that is 16 systematic and clear, in which the connection between significant facts are made manifest. It is 17 the search for first things and last things---- for first principles and their ultimate implications. 18 19 We all become philosophers at crucial points in life. we go at the painful task of living 20 with a set of beliefs---faiths, if you will----that organize the helter—skelter or experience into a 21 more or less systematic and coherent whole. From culture, class, religion, and family we are 22 provided with general framework, a world view, that filters out the unimportant and 23 impregnates experience with meaning. This framework of beliefs and values is largely 24 unconscious and inarticulate; and when it smashes against the hard rock of reality, the dilemma 25 we feel, but do not yet understand, kindness philosophical reflection. As our personal 26 relationships become more complicated, youthful optimism about human nature is tempered by 27 disappointment and hurt. As more and more is demanded of us and we begin to see flaws in 28 ourselves, the infinite horizon of opportunity shrinks in the face of our limitations. As we see 29 ourselves and others repeating the same errors, playing out the same role, we begin to wonder 30 whether society and nature have conspired to lock us into a mechanical mode of reaction 31 impossible to resist. As we grow conscious of the enormous amount of suffering and anguish in 32 the world, seeing at first hand the vast waste of human life, the old easy answers about a good 33 and loving God are shattered. As we face wholesale changes in the behavior of society, each 34 decade overthrowing the values of the last, we cannot help but wonder whether our own 35 commitments will stand the test of time or even whether such commitments are more than 36 subjective whims that we have elevated to first principles. At such times we lose our way in the 37 world and we ask, “What am I about?” This is philosophical territory. 38 39 Traditionally, philosophy has been partitioned into three areas: epistemology, 40 metaphysics, and value theory. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The following are 41 typical epistemological questions: What is scientific method? What is the role of observation in 42 knowing? Can there be absolute certainty about anything? What is an explanation? What is a 43 proof? Metaphysics is concerned with the description of the fundamental aspects of reality. These 44 are typical metaphysical questions: What is mind? It is different from matter? Is there necessity 45 in nature? Is there necessity in human decision? Does God exist Are numbers real? Which is 46 basic---force or matter? Value theory consists in resolving a number of problems about the 47 nature of value in arts, ethics, and politics: What makes something beautiful? It is taste or an 48 objective property? What makes something good? Again, is personal morality subjective or can 49 it be assessed by an absolute standards? Why should I disregard my own interests, if at all? 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 6  1 What makes one political system better that another? Should I always obey the law? What 2 makes someone into a moral authority? As you can see sometimes philosophical inquiry 3 becomes lofty and abstract; but even the most abstract theorizing is generated in a practical 4 dilemma and will eventually come back to illuminate its beginnings. The philosophical 5 perspective is ever the human perspective. 6 7 But the human perspective is limited. No one can scan the entire horizon of human 8 concern with the eye of a god. We see the world from where we stand, and partial yields only 9 partial truth. To recognize this fact, however, is not to counsel inaction, indecision, or despair. 10 Nor is it to fall back on the comfortable but wholly fallacious assumption that since no one has 11 all the answers, everyone’s opinion is equally valid. The recognition of fallibility is simply an 12 acknowledgement of our humanity. We have to get on in this world and either we entrust out 13 course to intellect and whatever insight we can muster or we flounder and fake our chances 14 with fate. There are no other alternatives. The basic assumption of philosophical inquiry is that 15 the most intractable puzzles of life---no matter how large---will ultimately give way to rational 16 analysis. But before this can happen, we must develop, as carefully as we can, our own vision of 17 things. Lived experience is the testing ground for these partial insights. The experience of one 18 individual or even of a generation may not be sufficient: but eventually what is true our outlook 19 will enlarge our understanding of the world and open it up to our command, while what is false 20 will lead us to confusion and frustration. 21 22 Philosophical thought usually begins when the world does not behave as we thought it 23 must. In frustration, the wise person takes stock. “ Know thyself” is the first injunction of 24 philosophy, for until we appreciate the extent which self colors experience which its own 25 loyalties, infuses it with its inarticulate commitments, we cannot enjoy the flexibility of action 26 and purpose that is the mark of true freedom. Many people believe that the mind is like a 27 sponge, soaking up facts with then present themselves on the stage of consciousness in all their 28 pristine reality. The mind, according to this view, is simply a receptacle which does not alter or 29 transform what flows into it. This conception of the “passivity” of intellect is perhaps the 30 greatest barrier to philosophical thinking. Philosophers are constantly reminding us that we 31 are the active shapers of experience, investing it with meaning from a hidden fund of 32 presuppositions, mostly submerged beneath consciousness like the great mass of an iceberg 33 beneath the water. The first task of philosophy is to bring these presuppositions to 34 consciousness—to remind us that the sense of obviousness accompanying certain facts has been 35 contributed by ourselves. An example will make this clearer. 36 37 When surgical techniques allowed for the safe removal of cataracts, people who had 38 been afflicted with this condition since birth were able to see for the first time. It is tempting to 39 think that upon opening their eyes, they experienced the beautiful and familiar world of 40 vision—a world of form and color, of public objects in a public space. But this does not occur. 41 The patient is immediately confronted with a wall of brightness containing color patches the 42 blend indistinguishably into one another. The flood of sensation is absolutely meaningless. 43 There is no awareness of shape or size, nor any idea of distance. In fact, some patients report 44 the impression that the swirl of color is touching their eyes. Familiar shapes, such as squares 45 and triangles, which are easily identified by touch, are unrecognized in this visual array. One 46 investigation writes: 47 48 The newly-operated patient do not localize their visual impressions; they do not relate 49 them to any point, either to the eye or to any surface, even a spherical one; they see colors much 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 7  1 as we smell an odor of peat or varnish, which enfolds and intrudes upon us, but without 2 occupying any specific form of extension in a more exactly definable way. 3 Gradually, the newly sighted learn that the color patches represent objects at a distance. They 4 discover that they can move through the field of color, that the colors move to the edge of the 5 visual field as they walk, and that no matter how they turn their bodies, the visual swirl 6 surrounds them. Slowly, they begin to apprehend that there are things behind them and in 7 front of them, but their conception of the spatial world is woefully inadequate. About his 8 patient, one doctor wrote: 9 10 I have found in her no notion of size, for example, not even within the narrow limits the 11 might have encompassed with the aid of touch. Thus when I ask her to show me how big her 12 mother was, she did not stretch out her hands, but set her two index fingers apart. 13 Another physicians reported similar effects in his patients: 14 15 Those who are blind birth have no real conception of distance. A house that is a mile 16 away is thought of as nearby, but requiring the taking of a lot of a steps.Only after long and 17 painful experience do the patient come to have an idea of objective space. As first, only things 18 extremely close are seen in depth, while objects at a distance remain parts of a flat wall of 19 sensation where everything ends. Here one objects moving in front of another is seen as two 20 color patches melding into one another. When a newly sighted girl first saw photographs and 21 paintings, she asked: “why do they put those dark marks all over them?” 22 23 “Those aren’t dark marks, “her mother responded, “those are shadows... if it were not 24 shadows, many things would look flat,” The girl answered: “Well, that’s how things do look. 25 Everything looks flat with dark patches. “With time however, the world begins to assume 26 depth and the flat curtain of color recedes into the background. 27 28 The mental effort involved in learning to see is enormous. Without mental exertion, 29 experimentation, and training, the bright wall of sensation remains a dazzling, incoherent 30 barrier. Sometimes the task proves too much for adults who have spent their lifetime relying on 31 other senses, and they relapse into their old habits. A doctor writes about his twenty-one-year- 32 old patient: 33 34 Her unfortunate father, who had hoped for so much from this operation, wrote that his 35 daughter carefully shuts her eyes whenever she wishes to go about the house, especially when 36 she comes to a staircase, and that is never happier and more at ease that when, by closing her 37 eyelids, she relapse into her former state of total blindness. 38 For the first time these people are struck by the tremendous size of the world, and they are 39 oppressed by their own insignificance. They become aware of the fact that they have been 40 visible to others all along, and they feel it as an intrusion into their privacy. Their emotional 41 and mental and mental lives are shaken to the very core. 42 43 The newly sighted undergo experiences which those of us born with vision toiled 44 through in infancy and have long since forgotten. Long ago the flat wall of sensation 45 fragmented into objects that zoomed away into space, and now it is almost impossible for us to 46 regard our visual field as a blur or color patches. Our perceptual skills have become to routine 47 and automatic that they give the illusion of naturalness, like the technique of an accomplished 48 musician. We tend to forget that what is now easy was once painfully difficult. The experience 49 of the blind in coping with their newfound sense of vision illustrate that even in the most 50 elementary perception, reason and judgment are at work, albeit in dim and forgotten ways. The 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 8  1 world that presents itself to our eyes—the world of three—dimensional objects in a public 2 space – is as much a result of thought as of pure sensation. How much more thought and 3 assumption, then, must lie half—hidden beneath our explicit beliefs about morality, science, 4 politics, religion, and the other great topics of human concern. Philosophy is attempt to ferret 5 out the most significant of these, to bring them into the bright light of awareness and, if 6 possible, to submit them to critical appraisal. 7 8 Socrates was the greatest practitioner of this analysis search for fundamental 9 assumptions. Walking through the streets of ancient Athens, he would buttonhole the powerful 10 men of his time, asking them irreverent questions about their opinions. To those who 11 pretended to know about justice, he quietly asked, to if—what is it? What do you mean by 12 justice and right and goodness? Don’t just give me a list of those things which possess these 13 qualities, but tell me the essence of the idea. Define your terms. What is virtue, morality, 14 knowledge? What do you mean by yourself, your soul, your mind? By skillful questioning, 15 Socrates would pry into depths of one’s system of beliefs, dragging out cherished certainties 16 and displaying their ragged clothing. This demand for clarify of thought and exactness of 17 definition left his victims confused and reeling. After being questioned, poor Euthyphro 18 confesses: “ I do not know, Socrates, how to express what I mean. For somehow or other our 19 arguments, on whatever ground we rest them, seem t turn around and walk away from us.” 20 Socrates had asked Euthyphro to define piety, and then showed, through a series of 21 deductions, that his definition was in serious conflict with other things he believed. He was 22 trying to make him feel a paradox in those beliefs and values which, on their face, were so 23 familiar and obvious. Piety, Euthyphro says, is whatever is pleasing to the gods. “Do the gods 24 love piety in and of itself?” Socrates asks.” Of course, “his victim replies. If this is so, Socrates 25 retorts, then the gods must love piety because it is pleasing to them – an absurd conclusion. 26 Euthyphro is staggered: “Come again... how was that?” ths sort of procedure is analytic in 27 nature. By bringing out the paradoxical in the familiar, our attention is forced inward, to our 28 system of definition, to the conceptual paths we have made for ourselves in the world. The 29 confusion we feel is that of a traveler who has used a road daily in one direction and now for the 30 first time must travel the opposite way. The old landmarks are alien, the curves and hills are 31 not where they are supposed to be, the terrain is confusing. Philosophy is an adventure in into 32 the commonplace. It is the human mind become conscious of itself and its contribution to what 33 is known. 34 THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM: DISCOVERY 35 The search for hidden assumptions and fundamental premises is actually part of a large 36 enterprise. In the end, a philosophy should present us with a unified vision of the world and of 37 our place in it. It is impossible, however, to identify and evaluate the bedrock of our belief 38 system without uncovering the relations, however vague, among basic beliefs. Perhaps another 39 analogy from the study of vision will illustrate this point. Ordinary perpetual experience leads 40 us to believe that our visual image is sharp and clear at any one time, like the image on a 41 photograph. In fact, however, the greater part of the visual field is a blur. Only about a one- 42 thousand part of the visual field-the part isolated by a focal area of 4 degree out of a total of 180 43 degrees—is presented to consciousness with real clarity. The rest seems sharp and clear 44 because the eye is constantly moving, summing up these focal areas in a fraction of a second to 45 create a larger area of clarity. Stop the motion of the eye and concentrate on one word. You will 46 notice how this small circle of clarity recedes into an expanse of vagueness and haze. 47 Experiments have shown that when the eye is completely immobilized (it takes a machine to do 48 it), the visual image fragments and disappears. Exploration is the sine qua non, the indispensable 49 condition, of clear vision. 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 9  1 Mental clarity is not unlike visual clarity. When we try to fasten onto a concept, to hold 2 it fixed in the light of awareness, it tends to disintegrate into meaningless. “Every definite 3 image in the mind, “wrote William James, “is steeped and dyed in the free water that flows 4 around it. With it goes the sense of its relations, near and remote, the dying echo of whence it 5 came to us, the dawning sense of whither it is to lead. The significance, the value of the image, 6 is all in this halo of penumbra that surrounds and escorts it. “To see our beliefs clearly, we must 7 scan our mental field to discover the ways an idea interacts with its surroundings. What a 8 person does with a concept in his or her total intellectual framework is a better clue to 9 understanding what it means that the most exacting definition. 10 Paradox and discovery are two sides of the same coin. Things seem paradoxical when 11 two firmly established beliefs whi9ch have been kept apart and allowed to function in their own 12 domains are brought side by side and seen to be inconsistent. Until then we really to do not 13 know that we believe, for usually our assumptions are nebulous and vague. We sharpen them 14 by experimentation—by examining the effect they have on other areas of experience. What are 15 your religious beliefs? How do you reconcile God’s goodness with His creation of people who 16 He knows will be responsible for the suffering of millions of innocents? How do you justify 17 Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Netro, etc. ? You say that they have free will and are therefore 18 responsible for what they do. But, then, how can free will exist in light of the findings of 19 science? Physical processes flow inevitably from their antecedent conditions. There are no 20 alternative. But we are not physical, you say. We possess a soul, a nonmaterial essence that 21 escapes the rigid fatalism of matter. What is your evidence for this? And so it goes. W shall not 22 find systematic answers to such questions lying within us, ready to spring to light when we 23 need them. Instead, we will have a vague feeling or where w are, and we may discover that 24 there are cracks in our belief system that cannot be repaired. Philosophical discovery is not 25 merely clarifying what was already fully there but hidden; it is also growth. 26 27 PHILOSPHY AND SCIENCE 28 Philosophy, it seems, is speculations about matters that can have no final answers. Religion, 29 morality, the existence of the soul, free will, the ultimate structure of the world—such issues 30 cannot be treated with precision. Science, on the other hand, presents us with a definite method, 31 a down-to-earth approach to things. We may to settle for less, but at least we shall know what 32 we have got. 33 Is there a yawning gap between science and philosophy? In order to answer this 34 question, we should look briefly at the dawn of modern science. 35 In the thirteenth century, Christian Europe rediscovered the learning of antiquity, 36 which had been lost during the Middle Ages. This vast wealth of information had to merged 37 with the Christian tradition, for as a system of knowledge it was far superior to anything then 38 known. The greatest name in Greek science was that of Aristotle, whose work systematized 39 physics, astronomy, biology, and psychology. 40 Things in nature, Aristotle held, are composite of two factors—form and matter. Matter 41 is the raw material, form the structure. To know what a thing is, one must know of these 42 aspects: What is it made of? What is its form? The key to understanding the form of a thing is 43 its telos—the goal or end toward which it moves. Everything in nature is directed by an inner 44 force to a specific fulfillment. To know what an acorn is, for example, is to know that it will 45 grow into a certain sort of tree. From common observation, Aristotle reasoned that the telos of 46 matter is rest. Roll a ball, throw a stone, shoot an arrow, row a boat—all these experiences 47 confirm it: matter naturally seeks a state of rest. Pick up a stone and feel it resist being moved. 48 The pressure you feel against your hand, its weight, is a manifestation of an inner drive to 49 move back to earth, its natural place of rest. 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 10  1 This reasoning, however, produces a problem. Matter, if left alone, should seek out its 2 place of rest and remain there. The world should be static and dead. Why hasn’t this occurred? 3 Something must be actively interfering with the elements, Aristotle thought, to keep them in 4 motion. Looking to the heavens, he saw the stars moving in circular paths around the earth. 5 Here was the force needed to account for activity and change in dead matter. The heavenly 6 spheres must communicate some of their motion by friction to the world below. But this 7 explanation meant that if the starts continued to move forever, they were not made of ordinary 8 matter. Indeed, they were perfect, incorruptible bodies. Eternal circular motion was perfect 9 motion, and the stars, following the urging of their special telos, were striving for perfection. 10 Aristotle’s physics astronomy merged with Christianity in the thirteenth century to 11 produce a world view that was at once commonsensical and profound. Although Christian 12 thinkers continued to regard the stars and planets as perfect, the suggestion that they moved 13 themselves in a celestial struggle for perfection smacked too much of ancient polytheism. The 14 heavenly bodies, like ordinary matter, required an external force to keep them in motion. 15 Whatever, such a force was, it could not be material, for then it would need a further force to 16 move it, ad infinitum. God was the logical solution, God was the wind in the sails of the 17 universe, actively moving the heavenly spheres around the center of creation. This was the 18 element that the Christian tradition needed for intellectual completion. Here was physical proof 19 of the existence of God. Henceforth no scientific person could doubt the religious vision of the 20 world. Astronomy, physics, and religion were molded into a unified system of explanation. 21 By the sixteenth century, however, this world view had become ungainly. In order to 22 account for the erratic movements of the planets—called “wandering stars” –the original 23 system of eight concentric spheres had evolved into an enormously complicated and 24 cumbersome tangle of movements. The orbits of the planets were practically unimaginable. 25 Each planet moved in a small circle, like a horse on a merry-go-round, the center of which was 26 attached to the periphery of a larger circle with the earth in the middle. Yet the planets did not 27 move in their little circles around the earth, but about a point slightly off center. To the 28 mathematical minds of the period, such a loping cosmic circus seemed unworthy of the divine 29 intellect. But in spite of these inelegant complications Aristotle’s astronomy remained the 30 preferred view because it rested on concepts that were in agreement with observation and 31 common sense observation suggests that the earth is a steady platform around which the 32 heavens moving object will come to rest unless a continuous force is applied to it. These 33 commonplaces were the cornerstones of Aristotle’s science, and before a new vision of the 34 world could hope to stand, they would have to be destroyed. 35 The year 1543 marked the publication by Nicholas Copernicus of On the Revolution of the 36 Celestial Spheres. In this book he theorized that the earth and the rest of the planets moved in 37 circular orbits around the sun. In order to account for the apparent movement of the sun across 38 the sky each day, he suggested that the earth rotates on its axis once each twenty-four hours. 39 The simplicity of this account appealed to many scientists, but it faced what appeared to be 40 insurmountable obstacles. If the earth were rotating on its axis at the required rate, its surface 41 at the equator would be moving at great speeds. An object thrown high into the air would not 42 land in the same spot. Birds would not be able to fly I the direction of rotation, for they would 43 be constantly falling behind the speeding ground beneath them. Besides, at such velocities, 44 objects would be thrown away from the surface of the earth like stones flung from a sling. 45 These objections strike us today as absurd, but only because w have become accustomed to the 46 concepts of inertia. In the sixteenth century, they were irrefutable. 47 At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Galileo Galilei was a professor of 48 mathematics at the University of Padua. Early in his career he had realized that Aristotle’s 49 science could not explain the flight of a cannonball. The cannonball continues to fly through 50 space when there are no apparent forces acting on it to keep in the motion. Most scientists, 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 11  1 unable to surmount their theoretical assumptions, invented invisible forces to account for this 2 kind of case. Some said that the air behind the ball continued to push it along, and as this forces 3 died. The ball fell to earth. But to Galileo, such explanation seemed to be born of desperation. 4 Besides, God was a mathematics he believed, and could not have made the universe as inelegant 5 as depicted in Aristotle’s astronomy. And so Galileo became a Copernican, while continuing to 6 teach the old astronomy. Later, in 1632, he would publish Dialogues on the Two Chief World 7 System, which would ring the death knell for Aristotle’s system. 8 The experiments in 1604 which led to this dramatic outcome seemed innocuous enough 9 at first glance. Galileo had already proven that the velocity acquired by a freely falling body 10 was not proportional to its weight. Now he was seeking to establish a lawful relation between 11 velocity and time. Lacking an accurate timepiece, he had to “slow down” a falling object in 12 order to measure the relation between distance traversed and time elapsed. To accomplish this, 13 he rolled smooth brass balls down an inclined plane on the assumption that the velocity 14 achieved is due to the vertical factor alone. In this way he discovered that the distance 15 traversed 16 https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/classicreadings/chapter/bertrand-russell-on-the-value-of-philosophy/ 17 Bertrand Russell – On the Value of Philosophy 18 Below is Chat GPt’s outline of the above essay. 19 1. Read and reflect on the essay again and write your notes on each topic 20 included in the outline 21 2. Form a one-sentence conclusion of the essay. 22 Here's an outline of Bertrand Russell's essay "The Value of Philosophy": 23 I. Introduction to the Value of Philosophy 24 A. Philosophy’s Importance in Daily Life 25 B. Common Misconceptions About Philosophy 26 C. The Practical and Theoretical Benefits of Philosophy 27 II. Philosophy and Its Impact on the Mind 28 A. Philosophy as a Means of Broadening Perspectives 29 o 30 1. The Challenge of Prejudices and Dogma 31 o 32 2. The Expansion of Knowledge and Understanding 33 B. The Role of Uncertainty in Philosophy 34 o 35 1. The Value of Questioning Assumptions 36 o 37 2. Philosophy’s Role in Maintaining Intellectual Humility 38 III. The Relationship Between Philosophy and Science 39 A. Philosophy as a Foundation for Scientific Inquiry 40 B. The Distinction Between Philosophy and Science 41 C. The Complementary Nature of Philosophical and Scientific Thinking 42 IV. The Practical Benefits of Philosophy 43 A. Philosophy’s Influence on Ethical and Moral Thought 44 B. The Contribution of Philosophy to Society and Culture 45 C. The Personal Benefits of Engaging in Philosophical Reflection 46 V. Philosophy as a Pursuit of Knowledge for Its Own Sake 47 A. The Intrinsic Value of Philosophy 48 o 49 1. Philosophy as a Means to Intellectual Freedom 50 o 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 12  1 2. The Satisfaction Derived from Contemplation and Understanding 2 B. The Role of Philosophy in Addressing Fundamental Questions 3 C. Philosophy’s Contribution to the Enrichment of Human Life 4 VI. Conclusion: The Enduring Value of Philosophy 5 A. The Unique Contribution of Philosophy to Human Thought 6 B. The Necessity of Philosophy in Cultivating an Informed and Reflective Society 7 C. The Legacy of Philosophical Inquiry in the Modern World 8 9 10 ETHICAL THEORY: OVERVIEW 11 Ethical Theories are attempts to provide a clear, unified account of what our ethical 12 obligations are. They are attempts, in other words, to tell a single “story” about what we are 13 obligated to do, without referring directly to specific examples. It is common in discussions of 14 business ethics to appeal to one or more ethical theories in an attempt to clarify what it is right or 15 wrong to do in particular situations. Some of the philosophical ethical theories commonly 16 appealed to include: 17 Utilitarianism, which says that the right thing to do in any situation is whatever will “do the most good” 18 (that is, produce the best outcomes) taking into consideration the interests of all concerned parties; 19 Kantianism (or Deontology more generally), which says that—as a matter of respect—there are certain 20 absolute (or nearly absolute) rules that must be followed (for example, the rule that we must respect 21 people’s privacy, or respect other people’s right to make decisions about their own lives); 22 Social Contract Theory (or “contractarianism”), which says that, in order to figure out what ethical rules 23 to follow, we ought to imagine what rules rational beings would agree to in an “ideal” decision-making 24 context; 25 Virtue Theory, which says that we ought to focus not on what rules to follow, but on what kinds of people 26 (or organizations!) we want to be, and what kinds of ethical examples we ought to follow; 27 Feminist Ethics, which is a complex set of interrelated perspectives that emphasize interpersonal 28 concerns such as caring, interdependence, and the ethical requirements of particular relationships. Such 29 concerns are traditionally identified with women, but Feminist Ethics should not be thought of as a theory 30 only for women. 31 In some cases, scholars attempt to use a single ethical theory to shed light on a topic or range of 32 topics. (A good example would be Norman Bowie’s book, Business Ethics: A Kantian 33 Perspective.) A more typical approach—one taken by many business ethics textbooks today—is 34 to attempt to use insights from various ethical theories to shed light on different aspects of a 35 particular problem. Such an approach might involve, for example, asking which decision in a 36 particular situation would result in the best consequences (a Utilitarian consideration) but then 37 asking whether acting that way would violate any Kantian rules or whether a person acting that 38 way would be exhibiting the kinds of virtues that a good person would exhibit. 39 The role of ethical theory in business ethics is somewhat controversial, in part because Business 40 Ethics is seen as a branch of “applied ethics.” Some regard applied ethics (and hence Business 41 Ethics, along with bioethics, environmental ethics, etc.) as a field that takes “standard” ethical 42 theories and applies them to practical problems. Such an approach might involve asking, for 43 example, “What would Kant say about privacy in the workplace?” Others regard applied ethics 44 as an attempt to gain theoretical insight (or to “build” better ethical theories) by testing them 45 against real-life problems. 46 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 1AY2425 GEC8 Chapter 2. Theory, Philosophy and Ethics. Beltran (2024) 14