Ethics Module 1 PDF

MODULE ONE – MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEM A. MORALITY AND ETHICS Introduction: Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles How...

MODULE ONE – MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEM A. MORALITY AND ETHICS Introduction: Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue Links to an external site., or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions that face us: is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? Is going to war justified in cases where it is likely that innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone a human being or to destroy human embryos in medical research? What are our obligations, if any, to the generations of humans who will come after us and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the planet? Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong. The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical principles where it once would have been more accurate to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy. Generally speaking, Ethics is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are encouraged to meet. At its simplest, Ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. It is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. Ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos which mean custom, habit, character or disposition. Ethics covers the following dilemmas: how to live a good life our rights and responsibilities the language of right and wrong moral decisions - what is good and bad? ETHICS AND MORALITY What is Ethics? Derived from the Greek word “ethos”, which means “way of living”, ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct, more specifically the behavior of individuals in society. Ethics examines the rational justification for our moral judgments; it studies what is morally right or wrong, just or unjust. Ethics is the study of the standards of right and wrong that inform us as to how we ought to behave. These standards relate to unwritten rules that are necessary for humans to live among each other, such as “don’t hurt others.” We function better as a society when we treat each other well. Ethics are the set of moral principles that guide a person’s behavior. These morals are shaped by social norms, cultural practices, and religious influences. Ethics reflect beliefs about what is right, what is wrong, what is just, what is unjust, what is good, and what is bad in terms of human behavior. Therefore, Ethics asks us how we should live, what choices we should make and what makes our lives worth living. It helps us define the conditions of a good choice and then figure out which of all the options available to us is the best one. While ethical beliefs are held by individuals, they can also be reflected in the values, practices, and policies that shape the choices made by decision makers on behalf of their organizations. The phrases business ethics and corporate ethics are often used to describe the application of ethical values to business activities. Ethics applies to all aspects of conduct and is relevant to the actions of individuals, groups, and organizations. KINDS OF ETHICS Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. In simple words, it analyses how people ought to act, in terms of morality. It is also concerned with the criteria of what is morally right and wrong. Moreover, the core concept of normative ethics is how to arrive at basic moral standards and how to justify basic moral standards. Teleological and deontological theories are the tools that help to determine this concept. In teleological ethics, the goodness or badness of action is determined by examining the consequences of that action, whereas, in deontological theories, the goodness or badness of action is determined by examining the action itself. Descriptive Ethics or comparative ethics is the study of people’s views about moral beliefs. In other words, it analyses ‘what do people think is right?’ Thus, the study of descriptive ethics involves describing people’s moral values and standards as well as their behavior. While normative ethics analyses how people ought to act, descriptive ethics analyses people’s moral values, standards and behavior. BRANCHES OF 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. Metaethics talks about the nature of ethics and moral reasoning. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct through articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our Normative ethics is interested in determining the content of our moral behavior. It seeks to provide action-guides; procedures for answering the practical question ("What ought I to do?"). Applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. Applied Ethics attempts to deal with specific realms of human action and to craft criteria for discussing issues that might arise within those realms. WHAT IS MORALITY? Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. It’s what societies determine to be “right” and “acceptable.” Sometimes, acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term interests to benefit society. Individuals who go against these standards may be considered immoral. Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. The word carries the concepts of: moral standards, with regard to behavior; moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action. Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories. We often hear words about religious morality or the phrase Christian morality in society. Items that fall into the morally sound category are qualities like good, goodness, rightness, virtue, and righteousness. When talking about a moral quality involving a course of action, we think of ethics. To define morality, a person will use the rules or habits with regard to right and wrong that he or she follows. It is a complex system of general principles and particular judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs. Cultures and or groups regulate and generalize these concepts, thus regulating behavior. TYPES OF MORALITY 1. Conventional Morality. If you are taking up Sociology or an Anthropology courses, and you asked on the morality of the cultures, you’ll probably focus on the patterns of behavior found in the cultures, their accepted ideas about right and wrong, and the sorts of character traits that these cultures find admirable. These are the elements of what we can call conventional morality —the system of widely accepted rules and principles, created by and for human beings, that members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the actions and the motivations of others. Conventional morality is the system of widely accepted rules and principles, created by and for human beings, that members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the actions and the motivations of others. Conventional morality can differ from society to society. Saudi Arabia forbids women from publicly contradicting their husbands or brothers, while Denmark’s morality allows this. Americans would think it immoral to leave a restaurant without tipping a waiter or bartender, while such behavior in many other societies is perfectly okay. 2. Critical Morality. When we talk about morality in this course, we will be referring to moral standards that are not rooted in widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of conventional morality and can be used to critically evaluate its merits. It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is all there is. But this would be a very surprising discovery. Most of us assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a moral view is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be wrong on this point, but until we have a chance to consider the matter in detail, I think it best to assume that conventional morality can sometimes be mistaken. If so, then there may be some independent, critical morality that does not have its origin in social agreements; is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular prejudices; and can serve as the true standard for determining when conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen into error. That is the morality whose nature we are going to explore in this course.  DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORALITY AND ETHICS MORALITY ETHICS The term morals is derived from a On the other hand, ethics is originated Greek word ‘mos’ which refers to from Greek word ‘ethikos’ which refers custom and the customs determined by to character and character is an group of individuals or authority. attribute. Morals are the beliefs of the individual Ethics are the guiding principles which or group as to what is right or wrong. help the individual or group to decide what is good or bad Morals may differ from society to Ethics are generally uniform society and culture to culture. Morals are expressed in the form of Ethics are abstract general rules Morals are dictated by society, culture Ethics are chosen by the person himself or religion which governs his life. Morals are concerned with principles On the contrary, ethics stresses on right of right and wrong. and wrong conduct. Morals do not have any applicability to Ethics is widely applicable in the business. business known as business ethics.. MORAL STARTING POINTS One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that there are any proper starting points for ethical reflection. They believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no moral views are any better than others. While this sort of skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as the default view of ethics. We should accept it only as a last resort. In the meantime, let’s consider some other fairly plausible ethical assumptions, claims that can get us started in our moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you up to the idea that we are not just spinning our wheels when thinking morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about how to live. Here are some of them:  Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism. The law does not have the final word on what is right and wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions that are legal, or customary, are sometimes morally mistaken. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some mistaken ethical views, and no human being is wholly wise when it comes to moral matters. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good thing. Friendships add value to your life. You are better off when there are people you care deeply about, and who care deeply about you. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can demand only so much of us. Moral standards that are impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality must respect our limitations. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. Moral responsibility assumes an ability on our part to understand options, to make decisions in an informed way, and to let our decisions guide our behavior. The fewer of these abilities you have, the less blameworthy you are for any harm you might cause. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is important that we get what we deserve, and that we are treated fairly. Deliberately hurting other people requires justification. The default position in ethics is this: do no harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable to harm others, but there must be an excellent reason for doing so or else the harmful behavior is unjustified. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are alike in all relevant respects should get similar treatment. When this fails to happen—when racist or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then something has gone wrong. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration. How well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the only thing of moral importance. Morality sometimes calls on us to set aside our own interests for the sake of others.  Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to cause such extreme suffering, but doing so requires a very powerful justification. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get away with lots of things that the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t justify what they do. That a person can escape punishment is one thing—whether his actions are morally acceptable is another. Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one twisting your arm, you ask someone to do something for you, and she does it, then your rights have not been violated— even if you end up hurt as a result. There are a number of points to make about these claims: First, this short list isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It could be made much longer. Second, we are not claiming that the items on this list are beyond criticism. We are only saying that each one is very plausible. Hard thinking might weaken our confidence in some cases. The point, though, is that without such scrutiny, it is perfectly reasonable to begin our moral thinking with the items on this list. Third, many of these claims require interpretation in order to apply them in a satisfying way. When we say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated equally, we leave all of the interesting questions open. (What makes people equal? Can we treat people equally without treating them in precisely the same way? And so on.) A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is, depending on how you look at it, either no morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any morality worth the name will place. B. MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEMS Morality is better understood by contrasting its principles with those of other normative systems. Each represents a set of standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.  1. Law - The fact that a law tells us to do something does not settle the question of whether morality gives its stamp of approval. Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism of a dictator) are not immoral. Certainly, man laws require what morality requires and forbid what morality forbids. That a legislature passed a bill is not enough to show that the bill is morally acceptable. 2. Etiquette - We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate, but it isn’t immoral to set them on the right. Good manners are not the same thing as morally good conduct. Morality may require us not to be polite or gracious as when someone threatens your children or tells you a racist joke. So the standards of etiquette can depart from those of morality. 3. Self-interest -The same is true when it comes to the standards of self- interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in life by betraying others, lying about their past, breaking the rules that others are following. It’s an unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one: you sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting immorally. Though the relation between self-interest and morality is contested, we can assume that morality can sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that we can sometimes improve our lot in life by acting unethically. 4. Tradition - Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a practice has been around a long time does not automatically make it moral. Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as it did when people called for the abolition of slavery or for allowing women to vote. And some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be morally excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a foolproof test of its morality. C. THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY Roughly, the Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires. The specific content of these divine commands varies according to the particular religion and the particular views of the individual divine command theorist, but all versions of the theory hold in common the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend on God. Divine Command Theory has been and continues to be highly controversial. It has been criticized by numerous philosophers, including Plato, Kai Nielsen, and J. L. Mackie. The theory also has many defenders, both classic and contemporary, such as Thomas Aquinas, Robert Adams, and Philip Quinn. The question of the possible connections between religion and ethics is of interest to moral philosophers as well as philosophers of religion, but it also leads us to consider the role of religion in society as well as the nature of moral deliberation. Given this, the arguments offered for and against Divine Command Theory have both theoretical and practical importance. The Relation between God's Commands and Morality Right actions are right just because God approves of them and wrong actions are wrong just because God disapproves of them. This is the essence of the Divine Command Theory of morality: God is a legislator of morality; he decides what's right or wrong in the same way in which the state decides what's legal and what's illegal. But divine commands run the risk of being arbitrary. Note that one cannot say that murder is forbidden by God because it’s wrong, if being wrong amounts merely to being forbidden by God. That is, on what basis does God decide what's wrong? Obviously, not on a moral basis. When religious people say that God is moral, they want to convey more than a simple truism. But this is possible only if God follows the moral law, which, therefore, cannot depend on His will or promulgation. If morality depends on God’s will, then those who praise His morality for doing what he does would praise His morality for doing the opposite; this does not sound right to many theists. If God commanded to kill the innocent wantonly, would murder still be wrong? Many would say it would. What could a theist say? Those theists who adopt this view often say that divine commands stem from God’s nature, which is absolutely good, and that therefore they are moral. One could go further and claim that God is not just but Justice, nor loving but Love, not moral but Morality, etc. The God’s commands would be ipso facto moral. Does morality depend on religion? The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly believe that morality can be understood only in the context of religion. Thus the clergy are assumed to be authorities on morality. When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose. The Divine Command Theory The basic idea is that God decides what is right and wrong. Actions that God commands are morally required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong; and all other actions are permissible or merely morally neutral. This theory has a number of attractive features. It immediately solves the old problem of the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids it. The Divine Command Theory explains why any of us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t we just look out for ourselves? If immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, then there is an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable. There are, however, serious problems with the theory. Atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for believers. One can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? This is a question whether God makes the moral truths true or whether he merely recognizes that they’re true. First, we might say that right conduct is right because God commands it. But this idea encounters several difficulties. ❑ This conception of morality is mysterious. ❑ This conception of morality makes God’s commands arbitrary.  ❑ This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles. Second option has a different drawback. In taking it, we abandon the theological conception of right and wrong. When we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard that is independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to God’s command and is the reason for the command. GOD AND MORALITY God approves of right actions because they are right and disapproves of wrong actions because they are wrong (moral theological objectivism, or objectivism). So, morality is independent of God’s will; however, since God is omniscient He knows the moral laws, and because He’s moral, He follows them. Then, God is a mere transmitter of values much in the same way in which a math teacher is a transmitter of mathematics which, however, does not depend on her. This view highlights the notion of divine righteousness. The Role of God in Moral Knowledge. Many theists have argued that God, whether the legislator of morality or not, has implanted in us the ability to understand the basic laws of morality, so that believers and nonbelievers alike can come to know how to behave. The role of God as the guarantor of the universal objectivity of morality. Some argue that without God, morality would just be a social convention without any universal validity beyond cultures or self-interest. The role of God as the ultimate administrator of justice. Some theists have argued that morality depends on God because God is the only person who can assure that justice is done, namely that in the next life one receives good and evil in proportion to the good and evil one has done. In other words, morality can be fully actualized only if God exists.. MODULE 2 -MORAL REASONING AND SKEPTICISM IN MORALITY At the end of this module, you should be able to: support moral judgements with sufficient reason. determine the minimum conception of morality. articulate on the morality based on cultural relativism. compare and contrast Psychological and Ethical Egoism. articulate Psychological and Ethical Egoism based on Ayn Rand's view. KEY CONCEPTS At the final point of clarification, it might be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be called moral issue. Supposing, a person cannot afford to buy a certain item and he resort to stealing. This is a matter of ethics and not just law insofar as it involves a question of respect to one's property. We should add that issue is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source considerable and inconclusive debate, thus we often hear topics like capital punishment and euthanasia as moral issues. When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, he is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I chose not to take something I did not pay for, when a person is an observer, who makes an assessment of the action or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgment. If a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store and I made an assessment that it is wrong. Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more complicated situation, wherein one is torn between the lesser of two evil, this is referred to as moral dilemma. We experience moral dilemma when an individual can choose one from a number of possible action and there are compelling ethical reasons for various choices. Reason and Impartiality. Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and second, morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests. Moral Reasoning. When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we just know what the truth is, without even having to consider arguments on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be nothing but the by-products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments. Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good reason. There are bad arguments as well as good ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in discerning the difference. 2. THE MINIMUM CONCEPTION OF MORALITY The minimum conception of morality states that: Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action. This paints a picture of what it means to be a conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral agent is someone: who is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does; who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified; who will “listen to reason” even when it means revising prior convictions; and who, finally, is willing to act on these deliberation. As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this “minimum.” This picture of the conscientious moral agent has been disputed in various ways. However, theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is why most moral theories embrace the minimum conception, in one form or another. Rachels states that if we want to discover the truth about some moral problem, we must let our feelings be guided by reason. This means that the morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the argument. The other option is to let our moral judgments be guided by feelings. However, our feelings may be irrational - "the products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning". By examining the argument we can think about our initial emotional reactions and whether they need to be modified. Rachels states that moral theory must include the idea of impartiality - the idea that "each individual's interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment" This requirement prevents us from treating people arbitrarily, if we are going to treat people differently we must have a good reason for doing so. 3. CULTURAL RELATIVISM It is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to yours, we can use the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture to our own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we should try to understand cultural practices of other groups in its own cultural context. For example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting!” one should instead ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional cuisine and have been eaten as a healthy food source. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that—the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead. The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their customs turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a dominant male might demand—and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives. The women were free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new partners—free, that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile practice that bore little resemblance to our custom Cultural Relativism Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there are no universal moral truths, the customs of different societies are all that exist. Basic principle Different societies have different moral codes. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. The Cultural Differences Argument Different cultures have different moral codes, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. What Follows from Cultural Relativism We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems Cultural Relativism starts by observing that cultures differ dramatically in their views of right and wrong. But how much do they really differ? We cannot conclude that two societies differ in value just because they differ in custom. Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures Any culture that continues to exist must care for its young. Every society must value truthfulness. The prohibition against murder, then, is a necessary feature of society. There are some moral rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable In 1996, a 17-year-old named Fauziya Kassindja arrived at Newark International Airport in New Jersey and asked for asylum. She had fled her native country of Togo, in West Africa, to escape what people there call “excision.” Excision simply refers to permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes called “female circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision. In the Western media, it is often referred to as “female genital mutilation.” KEY POINTS TO CULTURAL RELATIVISM “Different cultures have different moral codes” so, there are no universal moral truths; the customs of societies are all that exist. The following claims have all been made by cultural relativists: Different societies have different moral codes; that is, if a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.  There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says it is. Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was a common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Criticisms of Ethical Relativism. Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to deviate from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking? Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. 4. ETHICAL EGOISM What is Egoism? In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. People are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The term “egoism” is derived from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English. People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests? Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will. Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others’ interest instead: to what extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared to self-regarding acts? ALTRUISM OR EGOISM? Altruism is when we act to promote someone else’s welfare, even at a risk or cost to ourselves. Being moved by the plight of others—even the suffering of animals (or sentient beings to use Buddhist terminology) as in the aforementioned legend of Lincoln and the piglets—is considered a selfish deed of the theory of psychological egoism. Egoism has its roots in the philosophy of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE,) who argued that the human mind is driven by the need to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Egoism contends that deep down all our actions are motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. For example, if Tom saves Mark from drowning in a river, egoism contends that Tom’s seemingly altruistic behavior is actually motivated by his own self-interest to avoid potential social censure for not helping Mark or to be regarded a hero within his social circle. THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA One day, to your astonishment, you are arrested and charged with treason. The police says that you have been plotting ever since against the government with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and is being held in a separate cell. The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you don’t even know Smith. But this does you no good. It soon becomes clear that your captors are not interested in the truth; they merely want to convict someone. They offer you the following deal: THE DEAL: If Smith does not confess, but you confess and testify against him, then they will release you. You will go free, while Smith will be put away for 10 years. If Smith confesses and you do not, the situation will be reversed—he will go free while you get 10 years. If you both confess, you will each be sentenced to 5 years. A prisoner’s dilemma is a decision-making thing illustrating that two rational individuals making decisions in their own self-interest. It may be expressed as an approach where individual parties seek their welfare at the expense of the other party. Morality is said to be the solution to prisoner’s-dilemma-type problems. How does morality solve these kinds of problem? You could pursue your own interests exclusively—in every situation, you could do whatever will benefit yourself, taking no notice of anyone else. Let us call this “acting selfishly.” Alternatively, you could care about others, balancing their interests against your own, and sometimes forgoing your own interests for their sake. Let us call this strategy “acting benevolently.” This is where altruism comes in. If neither of you confesses, then there won’t be enough evidence to convict either of you. They can hold you for a year, but then they will have to let both of you go. Finally, you are told that Smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot communicate with him, and you have no way of knowing what he will do. What will you do? The Fable of Abraham Lincoln and the Pigs Once, Lincoln was traveling in a mud-wagon coach along a swampy, rural area. His fellow passenger was his good friend and US Senator Edward Dickenson Baker, who later lost his life in the Battle of Ball’s Bluff at the onset of the American War. While they were conversing in the mud-wagon coach, Lincoln remarked to Baker that in doing good and evil, all people are motivated by selfishness. Just as Baker challenged Lincoln’s assertion, their coach crossed a rickety bridge over a slough (a large swampy marsh.) Abruptly, Lincoln and Baker glimpsed a mother pig making a terrible squeal because her piglets were stuck in the swamp, couldn’t get out, and were in danger of drowning. As their coach started to head away, Lincoln yelled, “Driver, can’t you stop just a moment?” The driver replied, “If the other fellow don’t object.” With Baker’s approval, Lincoln jumped out of the wagon, ran to the slough, lifted the piglets one by one out of the swamp, and carried them to the dry bank of the swamp. When Lincoln returned to the coach, Baker remarked, “Now, Abe, where does selfishness come in this little episode?” Lincoln replied, “Why, bless your soul, Ed, that was the very essence of selfishness. I would have had no peace of mind all day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don’t you see?” THE PHLOSOPHY OF SELFISHNESS “Selfishness — a virtue”? Ayn Rand chose this book’s provocative title because she was on a mission to overcome centuries of demonization. In popular usage, Rand writes, “the word ‘selfishness’ is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends... and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests. “This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.” It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose between sacrificing other people to ourselves (which is deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and sacrificing our own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed unselfish and therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects both options as forms of selflessness, and offers a new concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that rejects sacrifice in all its forms. Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you please.” Moral principles are not a matter of personal opinion — they are based in the facts of reality, in man’s nature as a rational being, who must think and act successfully in order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is to identify the kinds of action that in fact benefit oneself. These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue, rationality. Rand’s moral ideal is a life of reason, purpose and self-esteem. WHAT IS ETHICAL EGOISM? Selfishness is often considered a vice and selfish actions are often judged to be wrong. But sometimes we ought to do what’s best for ourselves: in a sense, we sometimes should be selfish. While psychological egoism claims that the ultimate goal of one’s action is one’s own self-interest, ethical egoism claims that one should pursue one’s own best interest. The basic idea of ethical egoism is this: promoting one’s own best interest is in accord with morality. In its strongest form, ethical egoism claims that one acts morally if and only if one promotes one’s own best interest. The ethical theory known as ethical egoism states that we are always morally required to do what’s in our own self-interest. The view isn’t that we are selfish— this is psychological egoism—but that we ought to be. Ethical egoism views that people ought to pursue their own self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone else’s interests. It is thus a normative or prescriptive theory: it is concerned with how people ought to behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is quite different from psychological egoism, the theory that all our actions are ultimately self-interested. Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive theory that purports to describe a basic fact about human nature. WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM? Psychological Egoists say that behind every action that appears to be altruistic there is really a selfish motive. People help others because they believe it will get them into heaven, or because it will bring them public recognition, or because they enjoy the gratitude of those they help, etc. Attributing selfish motives to account for apparently altruistic behavior requires that we re-interpret the motives behind such behavior. For example, suppose that Fred runs into his neighbors burning house to save a child trapped there. Fred succeeds, and when asked why he did it, says “It was the right thing to do. I couldn’t stand by while a little girl died.” But the Psychological Egoist doesn’t take Fred’s explanation at face value. Perhaps Fred did it because of the positive attention he would get afterwards; perhaps he did it because he knew he would feel good about himself. Fred may tell us (and himself) that he was motivated by a moral judgment and concern for the life of the child, but in reality his motives are entirely selfish. Thomas Hobbes had a way of systematically re-interpreting “altruistic” motives. Two examples: Charity: Acts of charity are really a demonstration of power. The idea is that by helping others, we show ourselves to be more resourceful than others, because we can take care of ourselves and have plenty to spare. Pity: We pity others because we imagine ourselves in their place. Helping others out of a sense of pity is really an attempt to assuage our fear of how we might end up and help to ensure that others will help us if and when the time comes. In no case, according to Hobbes, do we act out of genuine concern for others. ETHICAL VS. PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM What is Ethical Egoism? Ethical egoism claims that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. People ought to be self-interested and that our neighbors ought not to give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or about the way things should be. What is Psychological Egoism? By contrast, asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. People are self-interested and that our neighbors will not give to charity. Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature, or about the way things are. What are the main differences between the two? The main difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism is that psychological egoism emphasizes the fact that people act primarily out of self- interest while ethical egoism emphasizes the fact that people should act for their self-interest. At initial thought, egoism refers to pride, selfishness and having high self-worth. However, with regard to psychological and ethical egoism, these definitions take on different facets. AYN RANDS ARGUMENTS ON ETHICAL EGOISM Different interpretations have been offered for ethical egoism. Ayn Rand believes that man should not sacrifice himself for others, and should not sacrifice others for himself either. According to this interpretation, the primary and natural goal of any living creature is to protect itself. The ethical value of each deed is based on the same goal. Of all living creatures, ethics only applies to man, since he has the ability to choose among valuable and invaluable goals. When evaluating if a given action is ethical, the most prominent issue we face is ethical egoism. Since in many cases, it is a difficult task to determine boundaries between ethical egoism and ethical altruism, it is important to study ethical egoism. Since Rand provides strong arguments in favor of ethical egoism and presents most of her philosophical viewpoints in the form of novels—a psychologically influential and attractive medium—it is truly essential to study her theory of egoism in the field of ethics. Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well- being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue. The perfection of one's abilities in a state of happiness is the highest goal for humans. The ethics of altruism prescribes that we sacrifice our interests and lives for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism is incompatible with the goal of happiness. Ethical egoism prescribes that we seek our own happiness exclusively, and as such it is consistent with the happiness goal. Therefore, ethical egoism is the correct moral theory