Lecture-Notes-in-Ethics-1.pdf

SOCRATES’ QUESTION The Question of the Ethical Lecture 1 F.J. Yoshiy, II University of the Philippines Baguio “HOW SHOULD ONE LIVE?” “How could it be that a subject, something studied in universities…, something for which there is a large technical literature, should deliver what one might recog...

SOCRATES’ QUESTION The Question of the Ethical Lecture 1 F.J. Yoshiy, II University of the Philippines Baguio “HOW SHOULD ONE LIVE?” “How could it be that a subject, something studied in universities…, something for which there is a large technical literature, should deliver what one might recognize as an answer to the basic questions of life?” Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, 2. Socrates’ Question A very general question Not immediate not about “what I shall do?” (now or next)? It’s a manner of life. What is the ‘good life’? Non-committal Not about “what life morally ought I to live?” Socrates’ question does not propose any moral claims. Our initiation to ethics “There is only one kind of question to be asked about what to do, of which Socrates’ is a very general example, and moral considerations are one kind of consideration that bear on answering it.” Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, 2. Moral Considerations? disposition or custom Towards ethics or moral philosophy ETHOS VS. MORES “Ethics” à emphasis on individual character “Moral” à social expectation Williams: “I am going to suggest that morality should be understood as a particular development of the ethical, one that has a special significance in modern Western culture. It peculiarly emphasizes certain ethical notions rather than others, developing in particular a special notion of obligation, and it has some peculiar presuppositions.” (6) or, ethics vs. morals FOCUS ON “ETHICS” If ethics is the broader system, then what goes into the notion of ‘the ethical’? Some notions that fall within the ethical: 1. Obligations (or duties) 2. Outcomes (or consequences) 3. Virtues 4. Morality The broader system 1. Obligations Instances of where one makes a promise Or, following one’s duty Performing one’s job in relation to one’s position, role, or relationship. Kant: performing one’s duty out of one’s free will (autonomy), not because of social pressure. Nevertheless, duties are already premised upon whatever I have already promised, a job I have taken, the position I am already in. Or duties 2. Outcomes “It will be for the best.” But what “best”? Usually “measured by the degree to which people get what they want, are made happy, or come similar consideration.” (8) Position held by utilitarianism. Or consequences 3. Virtues Virtue à “disposition of character to choose or reject actions because they are of a certain ethically relevant kind.” (9) “virtues are always more than mere skills, since they involve characteristic patterns of desire and motivation.” One’s virtue aTects the way one deliberates! But, virtues can also be misused! E.g., courage. Or, “an ethically admirable disposition of character.” Non-Ethical Considerations The case of vulgar egoism “relate merely to the comfort, excitement, self-esteem, power, or other advantage of the agent.” (11) The case of “ethical” egoism “claims that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest.” (12) Yet, there is a hint of ethical consideration to this: by leaving open the role of various ethical considerations and on how acting on them relates to self-interest. The Case of Egoisms “However vague it may initially be, we have a conception of the ethical that understandably relates to us and our actions the demands, needs, claims, desires, and, generally, the lives of other people, and it is helpful to preserve this conception in what we are prepared to call an ethical consideration. Williams, 12. Non-Ethical Considerations Malevolence – “evil for the sake of evil.” “Malevolence, the most familiar motive of this kind, is often associated with the agent’s pleasure, and that is usually believed to be its natural state; but there exists a pure and selfless malevolence as well, a malice transcending even the agent’s need to be around to enjoy the harm that it wills.” (13) The Counterethical 4. Morality “Will it count as an ethical consideration if you consider the interests and needs only of your family or of your community or of the nation?” (14) Yes, it does! However, morality interests itself beyond the local. à towards a more universal constituency. Concern for the universal constituency If we try to simplify matters… All ethical and non-ethical considerations we have just discussed, in one way or another, contributes to answering these questions. “I shall do…” or “I am going to do…” The very expression of our intention, the conclusion of our ethical deliberation. In some cases, we may say we are going to do this, but turn out not doing it anyway (for some reason)! “what am I to do?” or “what shall I do?” “What should I do?” “should” à points to our reasons for doing this and not that. “So, in this sort of case, what I think I have most reason to do, taking all things together, is the thing I very much desire to do, and if I should is taken to refer to what I have most reason to do, this is what I should do.” (19) “should” à the strongest reason for us to do something. Justifying our actions HOW SHOULD ONE LIVE? “It is a general question about what to do, because it asks how to live, and it is also in a sense a timeless question, since it invites me to think about my life from no particular point in it.” (19) “how has one most reason to live?” “Answering a practical question at a particular time, in a particular situation, I shall be particularly concerned with what I want then. Socrates’ question I ask at no particular time — or, rather, the time when I no doubt ask it has no particular relation to the question. So I am bound by the question itself to take a more general, indeed a longer-term, perspective on life.” Williams, 19-20. Assignment: Read the g. Alan Gewirth’s “Central Questions of Moral Philosophy” Selection from Book II of Plato’s Republic Deepening Socrates’ Question and its Relation to Moral Philosophy The Central Questions of Moral Philosophy Lecture 2 Franz Joseph Yoshiy, II University of the Philippines Baguio Central Questions of Moral Philosophy: I. Authoritative question II. Distributive question III. Substantive question I. Authoritative Question: WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL? THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO The Republic of Plato Main problem: an inquiry into the nature of justice; OR WHAT IS JUSTICE?  One of Socrates’ opponents – Thrasymachus (who is a sophist) – believes that justice is the “advantage of the stronger” i.e. of the ruler or sovereign. Thrasymachus’ argument “advantage of the stronger” – he who emerges as the stronger, defines what justice is. If in a country, for example, an oligarch emerges as the stronger, then his/her laws will favor and protect oligarchies. And thus, to obey the ruler’s laws is to be just. However, rulers tend to protect their self-interests! Socrates’ rebuttal: Do doctors cure for the sake of themselves? Don’t they cure for the sake and good of their patients? Do horsemen train for the sake of themselves? Don’t they train for the sake and good of their horses? SAME WITH RULERS! Aren't rulers supposed to rule, not for the sake of themselves, but for their constituents? Important lesson # 1 Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism. The law does not have the final word on what is right and wrong. (C.f. Landau, 2019) Book II: The Ring of Gyges Important lesson # 2 Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply suspect. (C.f. Landau, 2019) Should I be moral (or just) because… …it is good in itself …it is good in itself and its consequences are good as well …its consequences are good One last time…think about it… Bakit ba inis na inis ka kapag ang taas ng grado ng kaklase mong nandaya sa exam? Kung giginhawa pala ang buhay ko sa pangungurakot, bakit di ko nalang gawin? Important lesson # 3 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. (C.f. Landau, 2019) II. Distributive Question: WHOSE INTERESTS OTHER THAT MINE SHOULD I FAVORABLY CONSIDER IN ACTION? Why should we consider the interests of other people? Why can’t I simply consider myself in my actions? Why bother considering other people? Ontological condition of human beings as… BEING-WITH-OTHERS Gabriel Marcel: “Esse est co-esse.” [To exist is to co-exist.]  “…for existence to be truly human it must have a center outside itself. For life to be human, it must answer the question, what am I living for?” (Dy, 1986) Hannah Arendt: Human condition of plurality. (inter homines esse) In other words… “I have my own life, yet I am not alone. I am free but I have responsibilities.” “Mayroong ako dahil mayroong ikaw, siya, sila.” III. Substantive Question: WHICH INTERESTS ARE GOOD ONES OR CONSTITUTE THE MOST IMPORTANT GOODS? What are goods anyway? Aristotle: “Every art and every investigation, and similarly every action and pursuit, is considered to aim at some good. Hence the good has been rightly defined as ‘that at which all things aim’.” (The Nicomachean Ethics, 1094a) Assignment for next meeting… 1. BASED on what we have learned so far (on Bernard Williams and Alan Gewirth), write your own working definition for ETHICS (or Moral Philosophy). 2. Read the selection on Shelly Kagan’s Normative Ethics. a. Identify the two general branches of Ethics. b. Distinguish first-order from second-order moral questions. Recap… Bernard Williams’ on Socrates’ Question HOW SHOULD ONE LIVE? “Should” – the strongest reason Alan Gewirth: WHY SHOULD ONE BE MORAL? The strongest reason for being moral. Part of this reasoning requires critical thinking. But, what does it mean to think critically? CRITICAL THINKING “…thinking that (1) facilitates judgment because it (2) relies on criteria, is self- correcting, and is sensitive to context.” (Matthew Lipman, Thinking in Education, 2003, p. 212) Creating a Community of Inquiry “In a community of inquiry, there is a pooling of experiences in which each is as ready and willing to learn from each other’s experience as from his or her own. There is also a commitment to reasonableness – that is, to rationality tempered by judgment.” (Lipman, Thinking in Education) “Inquiry” à “leads them to deliberate with regard to concepts, evidence, jurisdictions, reasons, definitions and other matters directly involved in or complementary to the experimental aspect of scientific inquiry.” DEFINING ETHICS: A Group Activity “Ethics is a branch of PRACTICAL philosophy…” The Nature of Ethics Lecture 3  Franz Joseph C. Yoshiy, II University of the Philippines Baguio Branches of Philosophy Metaphysics – is the study of Being in general. Cosmology – is the study of the nature of the universe or the kosmos. Theodicy (coined by G.W. Leibniz) – is the study of the nature and attributes of God within the measure of human reason. Rational Psychology – is the study of the principle of man as a composite of body and soul. Logic – is the science and art of correct inferential reasoning. Epistemology (also called Criteriology) – is the study of the nature and possibilities of human knowledge. Ethics – is the study of (the nature of) human actions and its implication to goodness and evilness. Aesthetics – is the study of the principle of art and the appreciation of the beautiful. Axiology – is the philosophical study of values and valuation. Definition of Ethics “Ethics, or moral philosophy, asks basic questions about the good life, about what is better and worse, about whether there is any objective right and wrong, and how we know it if there is.” (McKinnon and Fiala, 2015, 3) Approaches to the Study of Ethics How do they diTer? They basically diTer in the questions that they ask. First-Order Questions are the concern of Normative Ethics How should I act? How should I live? What kind of person should I be? Is killing always wrong? Who exactly is it wrong to kill? Normative Ethics “attempts to state and defend the most basic principles governing these matters” – how one should act, how one should live, and what kind of person to be. (c.f. Kagan, 1997) Determines whether an action is right or wrong. Likewise, it concerns itself with whether there is a single ultimate principle from which all other moral principles can be derived. Second-Order Questions are the concern of Metaethics What exactly does the word “wrong“ (or “right”) mean? Can we really define “right,” “wrong,” “good,” and “bad” adequately? What kind of property is “wrongness” when ascribed to “killing”? Is there really objective “right” and “wrong” Metaethics  Unlike normative ethics which takes a certain position on the substantive content of morality, metaethics inquires into the very nature of morality itself. (c.f. Kagan, 1997) To add, “[m]etaethical inquiry asks questions about the meaning of ethical terms and judgments.”(McKinnon and Fiala, 2015) Under normative ethics… Applied Ethics - “the attempt to apply the general principles of normative ethics to particular diTicult or complex cases…” (Kagan, 1997) E.g. how does ethics or ethical theories respond to various issues concerning the cutting of trees, carbon emissions? (Hence, we have environmental ethics) Two approaches in Applied Ethics: (1) eclectic and (2) loyalty to a movement. *Applied Ethics Eclectic approach – given a single scenario/issue, how will the various ethical systems resolve the issue? The most eTicient system is prioritized. Loyalty to a movement – given a single ethical system, how will it resolve various ethical dilemmas/issues thrown at it? The loyalty to the system is prioritized. Two Types of Ethical Statements Normative (a.k.a. Evaluative) states a positive or negative regard for an action expresses a person’s belief (or standard) of what is right or wrong, good or bad. Descriptive (a.k.a. Empirical) States factual beliefs or experientially based information from other disciplines. Often times, factual matters are relevant to our moral evaluations. Examples: Normative: Rape is morally wrong. Descriptive: Rape “is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1.) By using force or intimidation; (2.) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3)When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.” (Art. 335, RPC) Examples: Normative: Capital punishment should be implemented. Capital punishment should not be implemented. Descriptive: According to a study by H.N. Mocan (2003), capital punishment decreases the rate of homicide. According to a study by Radelet and Lacock (2009), capital punishment “does not add any significant deterrent eaect above that of long-term imprisonment.”  Korsgaard in “The Authority of Norms” “ethical standards are normative. They do not merely describe a way in which we in fact regulate our conduct. They make claims on us; they command, oblige, recommend, or guide.” MORAL REASONING AND PSYCHOLOGY Lecture 3 Franz Joseph Yoshiy, II University of the Philippines Baguio Let’s look at these statements: “Criminals should be punished by death penalty.” or “I will not lie because that is the right thing to do.” What type of statements are these? How did we arrive at such statements/claims? How do we know what is good from evil? Is it because we are already good from the moment we are born? But why do some people commit evil? Is it because they are already evil from the moment they are born? ARE HUMAN BEINGS, BY NATURE, GOOD OR EVIL? Erich Fromm’s thesis statement: The human being “is able to know what is good and to act accordingly on the strength of his natural potentialities and of his reason…” (Man for Himself, 211) “The choice between life and death is indeed the basic alternative of ethics.” (Ibid., 214) But if this is so… Why do some human beings still commit evil acts? Fromm: because humans have a capacity for hate and destruction! Rational “reactive” – “biological hate,” natural reaction when our life or freedom is in danger. Irrational “character-conditioned” – comes from person’s character, lingers within a hostile person. Finds relief in expressing this lingering hate – in expressing this urge to destroy. Ethics is concerned with the second type of hate Fromm: “Ethics is concerned with the problem of irrational hate, the passion to destroy or cripple life.” (Ibid., 215) This hate is rooted in a person’s character. This destructiveness is inherent to all human beings. What causes this type of hate, though? Nature of hostility and destructiveness In understanding human destructiveness, the formula is simple: there is an inverse proportion between life-furthering forces and life-destroying ones. Life-furthering Life-destroying Fromm: CONDITIONS MATTER! “We have shown that man is not necessarily evil but becomes evil only if the proper conditions for his growth and development are lacking. That evil has  no independent existence of its own, it is the absence of good, the result of the failure to realize life.” (Ibid., 218). Therefore, “The failure to achieve maturity and integration of the whole personality is a moral failure in the sense of humanistic ethics.” (Ibid., 224.) Conditions shape our Character Fromm: “…the child starts his life in an indiTerent moral state, and that his character is shaped by external influences which are most powerful in the early years of his life…” (Man for Himself, 231) Supported by theories of moral development (studies by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg). Thus, for Fromm, even the way we make (moral) decisions are shaped by our character. When we reason out morally… “Our motives are an outcome of the particular blend of forces operating in our character. Each time we make a decision it is determined by the good or evil forces, respectively, which are dominant.” (Ibid., 232) Good or evil: productive or destructive, life-furthering or life-destroying. Goodness: Proper Conditions Matter “Virtue is proportional to the degree of productiveness a person has achieved. If society is concerned with making people virtuous, it must be concerned with making them productive and hence with creating the conditions for the development of productiveness.” (Ibid., 229) Summary: No one is good or evil by nature. We have the potential to be good or evil. Proper conditions matter for human flourishing and virtue. Evil, therefore, is the result of a failure to provide the proper conditions for human growth and flourishing. Our character is shaped by external conditions! It follows from these that our moral reasoning and judgment is influenced by how our character is shaped. Fromm… “If we could learn all about his heredity, his early and later environment, we would very likely come to the conclusion that has was completely under the sway of conditions over which he had no power…” (Ibid., 236) In other words… In judging whether a person is morally good or evil, one has to look first and foremost into that person’s circumstances. One has to fully understand all the circumstances which made him as he is – that is, his character. Nevertheless, that does prevent us from judging the moral value of his/her action. A judgment tempered by understanding. Assignment: Now that we have learned about how external factors contribute to our moral reasoning, let us take at look at our own context – the Philippines context - and how it shapes our moral decision-making. READ Virgilio Enriquez’ “The Filipinization of Personality Theory”  LIST down at least two (2) moral “proverbs” or “sayings” from where you came from. Local Sources of Moral Valuation and Reasoning Sikolohiyang Pilipino and The Filipinization of Personality Theory Lecture 4 Franz Joseph C. Yoshiy, II University of the Philippines Baguio Recap No one is good or evil by nature. We have the potential to be good or evil. Proper conditions matter for human flourishing and virtue. Evil, therefore, is the result of a failure to provide the proper conditions for human growth and flourishing. Our character is shaped by external conditions! It follows from these that our moral reasoning and judgment is influenced by how our character is shaped. On Moral Reasoning and Psychology Our aim for today To show how various indigenous and cultural values shape our ethical consciousness and inform our moral reasoning. …coming from the previous discussion Sikolohiyang Pilipino Refers to the psychology based from the experience, thought, and point of view of being a Filipino. (c.f. Enriquez 1976) Personality vs. Pagkatao Filipino Personality à to treat the Filipino as if it were an object of investigation Personality à “persona” à “a mask” Pagkataong Pilipino à Filipino “personhood” “asserts the shared humanity and the kapwa psychology of the Filipino.” (Enriquez 2016) A important distinction Resources Filipino language (wika) and culture (kultura) Consciousness (kamalayan) – learned experience Thought (isip) – knowledge and understanding Character (diwa) – attitude and behavior Self or one’s inner core (kalooban, nakem, buot) of Sikolohiyang Pilipino Language as Key “…it is more important to recognize that in the language lie many pieces the Filipino culture puzzle.” (Enriquez 2016) “The token use of Filipino concepts and the local language has led to the identification of some supposedly Filipino national values.” (Elequin 1974) E.g. hiya, pakikisama, utang na loob, amor proprio, bayanihan. May pagbabantang “sige lang” à Filipino sarcasm. Or, why language matters Sharing: moral proverbs/sayings from where you came from Discovering Filipino Values “Using the Filipino language, one sees hiya, utang na loob, and pakikisama merely as surface values, readily apparent attributes appreciated and exhibited by many Filipinos. In addition, these three are recognized as a triad whose legs emanate from a single trunk, the actual core value of the Filipino personality. This core value has been identified as kapwa.” (Enriquez 2016) Through language The Core Value: Kapwa “In the Philippine value system, kapwa is at the very foundation of human values.” (Enriquez 2016) “The core value must be cultivated and understood first before the full meaning of the surface values can become apparent and understood.” (Enriquez 2016) Kapwa as Shared Identity The Surface Values Hiya à propriety/dignity Utang na loob à gratitude/solidarity Pakikisama à companionship/esteem Hiya, Pakikisama, Utang na Loob The Pivotal Value: Pakikiramdam “Pakikiramdam is the pivotal value of shared inner perception.” (Enriquez 2016) One “seeks to clarify an ambiguous and therefore critical situation to arrive at an appropriate response.” (Ibid.) The link between core and surface values Pakikiramdam: How? Pakikiramdam is used to avoid causing kahihiyan (shame) to one’s self and others. A person who knows how to get along with others (makisama), knows “how to sense cues” (magaling makiramdam) Utang na loob vanishes if there is no pakikiramdam. (Pakikiramdam entails having a “sense of kalooban and time” or pagkukusang-loob). Pakikiramdam is necessarily tied to the Filipino surface values. THUS: In our valuation system… a masamang tao (or an evil/bad person) in our sense: walang pakisama walang hiya walang utang na loob/ingrato walang pakiramdam o manhid walang kapwa-tao à the worst, napakasama. You can observe the following: Clarifying the Surface Values Virgilio Enriquez’ Analysis of our Values Moral Aspect of Hiya Tagalog saying: Nahiya sa tao; sa Diyos ay hindi. (used to refer to a woman who committed suicide in order to avoid hiya/shame). “nahiya” vs. “nakakahiya” “Nakakahiya sa tao; sa Diyos ay hindi.” (social aspect) “Nahiya sa tao; sa Diyos ay hindi.” (moral aspect) Language expresses a moral injunction in a certain way. (meta-ethical analysis) Some words carry a moral signification, others do not. Hiya as propriety or dignity Utang na loob naman! QMercantilist interpretation: contractual relation, give and take, trade-og RDe Mesa’s interpretation (1987) : utang na loob as a commitment to “human solidarity” – a PLEA in the name of our common humanity or loob. (c.f. Enriquez 2016) Utang na loob à “a value which moves to recognize, respect, promote, and, at times, defend the basic dignity of each person.” (Ibid.) “You scratch mine, I scratch yours?” Pakikisama vs. Pakikipagkapwa Pakikisama as “smooth interpersonal relations” (Lynch 1961, 1973). Connotation: “conformity” Makisama = to conform, to be docile Enriquez: not pakikisama, but pakikipagkapwa! Pakikisama is just one form of pakikipagkapuwa, but not the other way around! Pakikipagkapwa: {pakikisama, pakikitungo, pakikibagay, pakikipagpalagayang- loob, and pakikiisa} Is pakikisama mere conformism? Summary Fromm: external conditions play a vital role in shaping our character, which in turn, informs our moral decision-making. Enriquez: A closer examination of our language reveals the core, pivot, and surface of our value system – all of which suggests that the the Filipino personhood (pagkatao) is marked and shaped by these values. Question: how do these Filipino values inform your everyday moral decision making? Moral Reasoning in the Local Context