Ethics Prelim PDF

ETHICS: INTRODUCTION What is Ethics? Ethics was taken from the Greek word 'ethos' which means 'customs', 'usage' 'characteristic',  Technically, What is Ethics? 1\. It is **a [branch of philosophy ]**that is a philosophical enterprise that investigates and questions the way or the nature of [hum...

ETHICS: INTRODUCTION What is Ethics? Ethics was taken from the Greek word 'ethos' which means 'customs', 'usage' 'characteristic',  Technically, What is Ethics? 1\. It is **a [branch of philosophy ]**that is a philosophical enterprise that investigates and questions the way or the nature of [human actions], see if it has a ground so that it supports its own moral claim. A Code of ethics is a set of ethical guidelines that is universally recognized. 2\. Ethics investigates or studies morality. thus, the term ethics is expressed in various ways of understanding and examining the moral life of the person as it is cited **by Beauchamp and Childress (1994).** **3. ETHICS= IS NOT JUST ANY** [ACTION OF MAN]**,** **RATHER, AN ACTION THAT IS GEARED TOWARDS WHAT IS CONSIDERED** [MORAL]**, NAMELY,** [HUMAN ACTION]. **Acts of Human vs. Human Acts** 1. [Acts of Human] - These are processes that do not require a decision-making action from a person. They happen naturally in the body, without a person\'s being conscious about them. Acts of Human is neither right or wrong. 2. [Human Acts] - These are actions that require a person to make a choice, use utmost responsibility, and use his/her conscience. Human Acts can either be right or wrong. Here are some **examples of Acts of Human**: 1. breathing 2. beating of the heart 3. perspiration 4. growing of the hair 5. growing of the nails Here are some **examples of Human Acts**: 1. telling the truth 2. giving money to the poor 3. returning a lost item [Human acts can be classified:] 1. GOOD ACTION 2. BAD ACTION Acts of man is considered as: 1. AMORAL or INDIFFERENT ACTIONS [\ 1. The Moral Aspect of Human Existence\ 2. Value Judgments Beyond the Scope of Ethics.\ 3. 2 Approaches in Ethics] **[the ethical dimension of human existence]** [Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values w/ particular and special significance to **HUMAN LIFE.**] [Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make **VALUE JUDGMENTS** that are not considered to be part of ethics.] 1. [AESTHETIC VALUATIONS] 2. [TECHNICAL VALUATIONS] 3. **[MORAL VALUATIONS]** [It shows us that aesthetic considerations and questions of ETIQUETTE are important facets of human life. ***But they do not necessarily translate into genuine ethical or moral value.*** ] [**THE CHOICE OF CLOTHING THAT ONE IS TO WEAR**, in general, seems to be **merely a question of aesthetics**, and thus one is taste. ] [Is it deemed **immoral** or **unethical** (improper behaviour) for women to wear spaghetti straps and for men to wear shorts inside the church?] - Yet in some cultures, what a woman wears (or does not wear) may bring upon harsh punishment to her according to the community's rule. - Afghanistan in the 1990s was ruled by the Taliban, and women were expected to wear the full-body *burqa*; a woman caught in public with even a small area of her body exposed could be flogged severely. [TECHNICAL VALUATIONS] We get the English terms \"technique\" and \"technical\" from the Greek word \"techne,\" commonly employed to denote the correct or proper method of performing tasks. However, it is important to note that a technical assessment, representing the right or wrong approach to doing things, might not inherently align with ethical considerations, as illustrated by this image **MORAL VALUATIONS** - They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of **HUMAN ACTIONS**, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being and human life itself. - Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussions of ethics. **NORMATIVE ETHICS** - Normative approach is an evaluative one, it is a way of generating and FORMULATING **[PRINCIPLES, RULES, STANDARDS]** THAT WILL GUIDE HUMAN CONDUCT OR ACTION. - In normative approach it includes general normative ethics and applied ethics. The former emphasizes any philosophical attempt to formulate and to defend basic moral principles and virtues governing the moral life, thus, it emphasizes **ETHICAL THEORIES** like natural law theory, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics etc. - The **PRINCIPLES** found in normative general ethics that are regarded to be of help to guide an action and are commonly applied to some specific moral problems such as in medicine, nursing and other medical sciences; thus, it yields an **[APPLIED ETHICS]** **NON-NORMATIVE ETHICS** - This approach is a non-evaluative one. IT SIMPLY CONSIDERS BY KNOWING WHAT IT IS AND DESCRIBES CERTAIN ACTIONS, PRACTICES AND EVENTS. - It is not expressed by categorizing that is right or that is wrong, rather IT SIMPLY EXPRESSED WHAT IS THE ACTION AND THE WAY AN ACTION WAS DONE. - Under this approach it presents two considerations, namely: DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS AND METAETHICS. - The former, simply reports through description and explanation of moral behavior and belief of a person. For example, the stages of moral development by Lawrence Kohlberg. - Now, in metaethics or analytic ethics it analyzes the peculiarity of an ethical language, such as 'ought', 'good', 'wrong' or 'bad'. It asks the question 'what is' and also analyzes the structure of logic and moral reasoning. These are investigated in metaethics. These are not the only forms of nonnormative ethics. There are other forms, such as those that consider the biological bases of moral behavior and the ways in which humans do not differ from animals. [Sources of 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:** 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 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.) JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003) - Rachels defines **CULTURAL RELATIVISM AS THE POSITION THAT CLAIMS THAT [THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN THE REALM OF 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 n*o 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. Internal Authority 1\. **[SUBJECTIVISM ]** "The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person (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." SENSES OF THE SELF ***"No one can tell me what is right and wrong".*** ***"No one knows my situation better than myself".*** ***"I am entitled to my own opinion".*** ***"It is good if I say that it is good".*** 2\. **[PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM]** *"Human beings are naturally **self-centered,** so 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.*** **Sources of authority: External Authority: Internal Authority** LAW RELIGION CULTURE SUBJECTIVISM PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM ETHICAL EGOISM **[LAWRENCE KOHLBERG STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT]** PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL**\ STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT** **AND OBEDIENCE\ STAGE 2:** **INDIVIDUAL AND INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE\  **\  CONVENTIONAL LEVEL\ **STAGE 3: MUTUAL AND INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY**\ **STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER**\ \ POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL**\ STAGE 5: SOCIAL CONTRACT AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS**\ **STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES** Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment Orientation: Morality is based on avoiding punishment. Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange: Morality involves pursuing one\'s own interests while respecting others\' interests. A moral perspective characterized by the principle of \"an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth\" is based on a retaliatory or retributive approach to justice. Gandhi and Jesus Christ transcended Stage 2 rather than being confined to it. I will reciprocate because I anticipate receiving a reward or benefit in return. \'You scratch my back and I\'ll scratch yours\' A reciprocal arrangement where I help you if you help me. Stage 3 - Good Interpersonal Relationships: Morality is defined by social approval, maintaining relationships, and conforming to societal expectations. Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order: Morality is about following laws and upholding social order. In Kohlberg's reasoning, people who **merely follow the rules and regulations of their institution**, *the laws of their community or state*, *the doctrine of their religion---even **if they seem to be the truly right thing to do**---are* trapped in this **second or conventional level**, which is still [***not** yet the highest.* ] Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights: Morality transcends individual perspectives and considers societal agreements and individual rights. Stage 6 - Universal Principles: Morality is guided by universal ethical principles, even if they conflict with societal laws or rules. **I will do what is good because...** 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE- ***[I want to avoid punishment]\ ***2: INDIVIDUAL AND INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE- ***[I want to have a reward or in exchange of something]***\  \ \ 3: MUTUAL AND INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY- [***to gain the approval of others***\ ]4: LAW AND ORDER- ***[it is according to the law and rules]*** 5: SOCIAL CONTRACT AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS- ***[it will be for the common good]***\ 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES- ***[it is the good thing to do.]*** - **MORAL MATURITY** therefore is seen in an agent who acts on [what she has understood, using her full rationality, to be what is right,] regardless of whether the act will bring the agent pleasure or pain and even regardless of whether the act is in accordance with one's community's laws or not. **[Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma]** 1. MORAL ISSUE- We should add that "issue" is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as **[capital punishment and euthanasia]** as moral "issues"). 2. MORAL DECISIONS- When one is placed in a [situation] and confronted by the choice of what act to perform. 3. MORAL JUDGMENT- When a person is an **[observer]** who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone. 4. MORAL DILEMMA- **[one is torn between choosing one of two good or bad choosing between the lesser of two evils.]** when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reason for the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral dilemma. ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING **A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING** 1. GATHER THE FACTS -- Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the facts is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analyzing a case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as any facts currently not known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking not only "What do we know?" but also " What do we need to know?" in order to make an intelligent ethical decision. 2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES - The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests or goods. It's these conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be presented as \_\_\_\_\_\_versus \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, in business ethics there is often a conflict between the right of a firm to make profit and its obligation to the community. In this case, the obligation pertains to the environment. 3. WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE - In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are central to the conflicting positions being taken. It is critical to identify these principles, and in some cases, to determine whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily than others. Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may be other principles that speak to the case that come from other sources. There may be constitutional principles or principles drawn from natural law that supplement the biblical principles that come into play here. The principles that come out of your mission and calling are also important to consider 4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES - Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves coming up with various alternative courses of action. Although there will be some alternatives that you will rule out without much thought, in general the more alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high-quality ones. In addition, you may come up with some very creative alternative that you had not considered before. 5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PRINCIPLES - At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be resolved at this point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision that can be made without further deliberations. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next part is the model that must be considered. At the least, some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison. 6. WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES - If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally weighed, since some positive consequences are more detrimental than others. 7. MAKE A DECISION - Deliberations cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be made. Realize that one common element in ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently the decision that is made is one that involves the least number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.