External vs. Internal Authority in Ethics PDF

External Authority Internal Authority External vs. Internal Authority in Ethics: A Snapshot External Authority: Origin: Derived from societal norms, legal systems, religious doctrines, or cultural traditions. Influence: Guides behavior through external rules, ---#-- regulations...

External Authority Internal Authority External vs. Internal Authority in Ethics: A Snapshot External Authority: Origin: Derived from societal norms, legal systems, religious doctrines, or cultural traditions. Influence: Guides behavior through external rules, ---#-- regulations, or expectations, often driven by fear of punishment or societal approval.  Internal Authority: EE Origin: Stems from an individual's values, conscience, and sense of morality. Influence: Guides behavior based on personal convictions, moral values, and ethical beliefs, driven by an internal moral compass.  External Authority 1. Law(State) Law refers to a system of rules, regulations, and principles established by a governing authority (such as a government) to -0€ regulate the behavior of individuals and groups within a society. Note: NOT ALL LEGAL IS MORAL, AND NOT ALL MORAL IS LEGAL Abortion may be permitted by law in the United States, but the Catholic Church considers it immoral. Expressing one's opinions freely is against the law in North Korea, but it is generally considered morally right. 2.RELIGION (FAITH)- MULTIPLICITY of religion Polygamy is considered morally acceptable in Islam but is deemed immoral in Christianity. Eating dinuguan is considered immoral by certain religions but not by Catholics. 3. CULTURE- cultural relativism (aesthetic differences, - religious differences , etiquette differences.) - “we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable” “Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your cultures says”  JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003) Rachels defines CULTURAL RELATIVISM AS THE POSITION THAT CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE = IN THE REALM OF TRUTH MORALITY. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have different moral codes, then THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT MORAL CODE THAT ALL CULTURES MUST  FOLLOW. The Eskimos also seemed to care less about human life. Infanticide, for _ example, was common. Knud Rasmussen, an early explorer, reported meeting one woman who had borne 20 children but had killed 10 of them at birth. Female babies, he found, were especially likely to be killed, and this was permitted at the parents’ discretion, with no social stigma attached. Moreover, when elderly family members became too feeble, they were left out in the snow to die. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION in some Filipino tribes  He posits three ABSURD CONSEQUENCES of accepting the claim of cultural relativism. First, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture anymore as long as that culture thinks that what it is doing is correct. But if that is the case, then the Jews, for example, cannot criticize the Nazis’ plan to exterminate all Jews in World War II, since obviously, the Nazis believed that they were doing the right thing.  Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of one’s own culture. If that is the case, the black South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a policy of racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in a society, could not criticize that official state position  Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the case, then the fact many societies now recognize women’s rights and children’s rights doe not necessarily represent a better situation than before when societies refused to recognize that women and children even had rights. Rachels believed that moral progress is possible and that societies can improve their moral standards over time. Accepting moral beliefs without questioning them can hinder this progress because it may prevent individuals from challenging and revising outdated or harmful moral norms.  NO CULTURE, WHETHER IN THE PRESENT WORLD OR IN THE PAST, WOULD PROMOTE MURDER INSTEAD OF PROHIBITING IT. a hypothetical culture that promotes murder would immediately cease to exist because the members would start murdering each other.  Cultural Relativism Critique Rachels argued against cultural relativism, which is the idea that moral beliefs are entirely determined by one's culture, and there are no universal moral truths. He believed that this view could lead to moral stagnation because it discourages questioning and moral progress. If individuals unquestioningly accept their cultural moral beliefs, they may fail to recognize and correct morally problematic aspects of their culture.  SENSES OF THE SELF 1. SUBJECTIVISM “No one can tell me what is right and “The starting point of wrong”. subjectivism is the “No one knows my situation better recognition that the than myself”. individual thinking person “I am entitled to my own opinion”. “It is good if I say that it is good”. (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations.” ¥ “THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE SOLE DETERMINANT OF WHAT IS MORALLY GOOD OR BAD, RIGHT OR WRONG.”  2. PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM “Human beings are naturally = so self-centered, all our action are always already motivated by- = self-interest.” All People are Selfish = in Everything They Do  3. ETHICAL EGOISM we should make our own ends, our own interest, as the single overriding concern. An act is right for a person to perform if and only if that act is in the person’s best interest. We may act in a way that is → beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. External Authority Internal Authority LAW RELIGION External Authority CULTURE SUBJECTIVISM Internal Authority PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM ETHICAL EGOISM