Module 1 - Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics.pdf

ETHICS 1 – ETHICS AND MORAL REASONING IN MODULE 1 E V E R Y D AY L I F E INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY (PART 1 OF 2) TOPICS UNDER THIS MODULE Defining Philosophy The Value of Philosophy The Philosopher’s Attitude...

ETHICS 1 – ETHICS AND MORAL REASONING IN MODULE 1 E V E R Y D AY L I F E INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY (PART 1 OF 2) TOPICS UNDER THIS MODULE Defining Philosophy The Value of Philosophy The Philosopher’s Attitude Philosophy Division Department of Humanities CAS, UPLB Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics INTRODUCTION Philosophy came from the Greek word philosophia. Etymologically, the words philo and sophia respectively mean love and wisdom. But if we rest with the definition of philosophy as plainly the love of wisdom, we will encounter some confusion. What do we mean by wisdom? How will we understand love that is to be accorded to wisdom? This module aims to explain what philosophy is and how ethics is closely linked with philosophizing. LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this module, you should be able to: 1. Explain what philosophy is, its activity, and importance. 2. Develop your own understanding of the value of philosophy in everyday life. 3. State why Philosophy is still relevant and important in our daily lives. DISCUSSION OF KEY CONCEPTS I. Defining Philosophy Historically, Pythagoras was the first to coin the word philosophy. When asked what his occupation was, he replied that he was a philosophos. It must be noted that not all philosophers agree on a fixed definition of philosophy. But perhaps we can start defining philosophy by asserting that philosophy is all about the truth, but what kind of truth? Mathematics seeks the truth behind numbers. Physics investigates the truth about space and matter. We can also say that theology aims to unravel truths about God and its plan for the world. Perhaps we can gain an insight from Thomas Nagel (In Mabaquiao 2016:17): Page 1 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics A historian may ask what happened at some time in the past, but a philosopher will ask, “What is time?” A mathematician may investigate the relations among numbers, but a philosopher will ask, “what is a number?” A physicist will ask what atoms are made of or what explains gravity, but a philosopher will ask how we can know there is anything outside of our minds. A psychologist may investigate how children learn a language, but a philosopher will ask, “What makes a word mean anything?” Anyone can ask whether it’s wrong to sneak into a movie without paying, but a philosopher will ask, “What makes an action right or wrong?” What can be gleaned about this quotation? Philosophy studies anything and everything that exists. It aims to know some kind of truth behind all of things existing. We can gain more insight if we briefly discuss the major concerns philosophers grapple with. Traditionally, philosophy tries to answer three major questions: (1) What is there?, (2) How do we know that which is there?, and (3) Why are these things in the world important or at least concerns us? These questions translate to the three major branches of philosophy. Question 1 corresponds to metaphysics (meta=beyond). It tries to articulate our reasons for qualifying the existence of beings or things. One question metaphysics tries to answer is, “Does God exist, even if we cannot empirically verify it?” Question 2, on the other hand, relates to epistemology (episteme-knowledge, logos-science or study). It is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. One traditional concern of epistemology is the problem of whether we can have certainty about our beliefs or not.Finally, question 3 translates to axiology. It is the branch of philosophy where we inspect the area of things that have value and why are they worth pursuing (the Greek word, axia means value or worth). This branch is subdivided into two: aesthetics and ethics. The former (aisthetikos = perception) is concerned with notions of beauty and what can be considered as art while latter (ethos=character) is concerned with moral standards and positions. After briefly discussing these major branches, it should be mentioned that the tool which philosophers use in articulating and proposing answers to the questions is correct reasoning. The study of the truth and validity of our arguments, of checking the reasonableness of statements is the chief concern of logic. Where do all of these discussions lead us? To summarize the foregoing discussion, I would like to adopt the definition that Lorenz Moises Festin, PhD states whenever he gives an introduction to the subject. He says that philosophy is the study of being (or everything), according to its ultimate explanation, in the light of reason. Philosophy’s subject matter is anything that exists, and it would like to know, as much as possible, the foundational truths about the things of the world. The way by which the philosopher achieves this is through the careful use of reason to produce coherent and strong arguments. Page 2 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics I I. T h e Va l u e of P h i l o s o p h y Some would say, “philosophy is a useless discipline.” Probably because philosophy does not promise any definite answers the same way that other fields of study do. In the next reading, one understanding of philosophy is that it is a discipline that deals with questions and is not chiefly concerned with answers. But what’s the reason behind the philosopher’s passion for questions? Scientific questions are inquiries which yield definite answers. You may have encountered this, for example, in your physics class. “At what time will the ball hit the ground given the distance of the thrower from the ground?” After one successfully executes the trials of the physics task, one is able to get a tangible and recorded result. Thus, scientific questions yield tangible results. However, majority of these so-called scientific questions did not really start as scientific ones. For example, Alan Turing, the catalyst of the idea of artificial intelligence in the 1950’s started with the question: “Can machines think like human?” This was a philosophical question until researches were done to see that it was possible for machines to think like human. This problem, today, falls more as a concern of the physical sciences rather than Philosophy. Mabaquiao (2016: 37-38) writes, Page 3 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics In short, philosophy does the preliminary work for science in finding definite answers to certain questions. And so, if we value science for the definiteness of its answers to the questions that it deals with, the more we should value philosophy for making it possible for science to deal with such questions. Given this, it is thus simply wrong to think that just because there are no definite answers to the philosophical questions, or that philosophers do not seem to agree on how to answer philosophical questions, then philosophy is just a waste of time and energy. The value of philosophy is to be found in its ability to tickle the mind. It arouses the mind to ask questions which are connected to our day to day existence. When attempts to answer these questions surface, there is a possibility that a series of questions will be given until the questioner is satisfied with an answer. We then see the value of this shift from philosophical question to scientific one. I I I. T h e P h i l o s o p h e r ’s At t i t u d e After learning what philosophy is, how it is done by philosophers, and its value, we now come to another question: Who is the ideal philosopher? In order to answer this, we must first answer this question - how did philosophy start? Perhaps one of the famous words on how philosophy started is from Socrates. He says, “wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” To wonder is to be curious about all things. To wonder is to question the things that tickle one’s mind. Hence the first attitude of one who philosophizes is the capacity to wonder i.e., curiosity. Anyone who wonders and who is curious already practices philosophy. Curiosity moves the person to search for answers. As mentioned earlier, questions are important for a philosopher. More than the answers one can give, questions enrich and broaden one’s perspective. A philosopher is someone who is not satisfied, who always looks for answers, and who is ready to broaden his/her mind. A philosopher then is accepting of all angles. She is broad-minded. One does not settle for a single answer but tries to qualify all the possible answers. A philosopher has to have a certain sense of openness to all ideas and a spirit of emptying biases in order to fully comprehend wisdom. Finally, a philosopher, though welcoming of all possible solutions to a problem, needs to be skeptical. A skeptic is someone who casts doubts in pronouncements or statements; she does not readily believe in it. I use the word skeptic here to stress that a philosopher need not embrace and subscribe to all the things s/he hears or reads. A philosopher is a critical thinker. She critically examines and analyzes the things she perceives in order to keenly arrive at the best possible truth or answer to a particular problem. Page 4 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION S u m m a r i ze w h a t y o u h a v e l e a r n e d. Fo l l o w t h e f o r m a t below: 1. B e f o re s t u d y i n g t h e m o d u l e , I t h o u g h t t h a t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 2. A f t e r s t u d y i n g t h i s m o d u l e , I n ow k n ow t h a t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 3. I t h i n k I h a v e n o t f u l l y g ra s p e d t h e f o l l ow i n g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 4. To a d d re s s t h e t h i n g s I h a v e w r i t t e n a b ov e , I p l a n t o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________________________. REFERENCES Mabaquiao, N. 2016. Making life worth living: an introduction to the philosophy of the humanperson. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House Inc. Russell, B. 1998. “The Value of Philosophy”, In The problems of philosophy. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 89 -94. Prof. Raemel Niklaus P. Leyretana Jennica Rose A. de Guzman Keisha Christle A. Abog LAYOUT DESIGNER / PROOFREADER MODULE AUTHORS Page 5 of 12 ETHICS 1 – ETHICS AND MORAL REASONING IN MODULE 1 E V E R Y D AY L I F E INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS (PART 2 OF 2) TOPICS UNDER THIS MODULE Ethics as a Subject Terms Used in Ethics Primary Specimen in Ethics Philosophy Division Reasoning and its Role in Ethics Six Challenges in Discussing Ethics Department of Humanities CAS, UPLB Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics INTRODUCTION Ethics, as defined in Part 1, is the study of the underlying principles of morality. Although it bears similarities with other familiar subjects, particularly GMRC (Good Manners and Right Conduct) or Edukasyon Pagpapahalaga (Values Education, sometimes referred to as Edukasyong Pagpapakatao), the main difference would be that Ethics aims to question why human conducts are considered either moral or not. In essence, Ethics aims to look for the fundamental bases of moral evaluations. In contrast to the other subjects mentioned, which simply prescribe conducts / actions believed to be moral. LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this module, you should be able to: 1. Define Ethics as a subject and enumerate the three approaches in studying it. 2. Define and differentiate the terms used in Ethics such as evaluative terms. 3. Identify the primary specimen in Ethics and trace its historical origin. 4. Analyze the structure and practice of reasoning along with its role in Ethics. 5. Enumerate the Six Challenges in discussing Ethics. Page 6 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics DISCUSSION OF KEY CONCEPTS I. Ethics as a Subject There are three ways in studying Ethics. The first approach is Meta- ethics. From the word meta which means beyond (the same way how it is used in the word Metaphysics), Meta-ethics is the study of the basic ethical concepts and principles that aid in the discussion of Ethics. What we are (and will be) doing here on Part 2 basically encompasses Meta -ethics. The second approach is Normative Ethics. From the Latin word norma meaning right (originally means right-angle ruler or square) this approach focuses on the study of various Ethical Frameworks or Theories that aim to guide our conduct. The huge bulk of Ethics 1 is a survey of various Ethical Frameworks or Theories trying to answer the fundamental question in Ethics such as “what is good?” or how Socrates would phrase it, “how ought I to live?” The last approach is Applied Ethics. This approach is an application of Ethical Theories towards specific concerns such as Bioethics/Biomedical Ethics, Environmental Ethics, Cyber Ethics, Business Ethics, etc. This is sometimes referred to as Practical Ethics since the Ethical Theories being applied manifest directly as conduct. I I. Te r m s U s e d i n E t h i c s In clarifying how we use basic key terms in ethics such as the adjectives ethical, moral, good, right, and the like, it must be noted that there are two ways in using these words – in an ethical and a non-ethical sense. To use a word in an ethical sense means to pertain to something that is within the scope of ethics. To use the word in a non -ethical means that something is not a concern of ethics or that it does not carry any ethical evaluation. In relation to the discussion of ethical evaluation, the second case in using the word ethical is by pertaining to a positive value. Its opposite is thus unethical. The two ways of using the word ethical could be understood alongside other synonymous terms. WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ETHICS EVALUATIVE TERMS Ethical Non-Ethical Ethical Unethical Moral Amoral Moral Immoral Good Bad Right Wrong Page 7 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics III. Primar y Specimen in Ethics Ethics is the subject whereas the subject matter (the specimen of sort that we discuss, examine, and question) is Morality. In as much as these two words came from different origins (Ethics from the Greek word ethos meaning character and Morality from the Latin word moralis meaning proper conduct), both terms yield a similar meaning. The conducts that we evaluate as moral or not start with basic survival instincts. Primitive humans gathered together to help one another against elements and forces that could disrupt human life, and at the same time promote and protect those that are beneficial for their survival and development. The first set of rules that dictated how things should or should not be done are referred to as Folkways. From formation of these rules and sanctions for the sake of societal welfare Mores emerged. These Mores now become the bases for the moral aspect of human conduct. This is the point when these conducts start to carry ethical evaluation. As societies expand, Mores are formalized and codified into Laws to easily manage its many recipients. This explains why the law bears a moral aspect (but we will see later in Challenges in Ethics that this is not always the case). These laws then both protect the people under it and punish those who disobey it, and at the same time the people under such laws are bound to respect and follow it. Page 8 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics In making moral decisions there are two basic models. The first model, the Deductive Model of Moral Reasoning , follows a deductive scheme that starts from (1) a general rule (Ethical Framework or Theory) that dictates what should be considered as ethical or not, proceeded by (2) a specific example (particular human conduct), then concluded with (3) the evaluation of the example based on the rule being used. Example: (1) According to Immanuel Kant, all acts of lying are immoral.;; (2) Rody lied to his constituents. (3) Based on the Ethical Framework of Immanuel Kant, Rody is immoral. The second model, the Reflective Equilibrium Model , follows an inductive scheme that starts from (1) facts (experiences, ideas, narratives), evaluated alongside (2) relevant pre-existing beliefs, eventually arriving at (3) one’s judgment of a particular conduct. Example: (1) Rody lied to his constituents. (2) Rody believes that lying is permissible if it benefits a lot of people. (3) Rody’s lies benefitted a lot of people, hence, it is moral. The decision formulated by that individual could be revised and adjusted through time due to the inclusion of new facts in order to apply to new cases. This process aims to arrive at a coherent decision making. As to what sort of model we should use in life depends primarily either on what the situation calls for, on the Ethical Framework or Theory being used, or on our personal choice. I V. S i x C h a l l e n g e s i n D i s c u s s i n g E t h i c s There are several challenges in discussing ethics, some of which would question the relevance of Ethics, the existence of ethical standards, and even the very nature of Ethics as a subject itself. 1. Moral Subjectivism posits that since each individual has their own ethical point of view, it would be useless to settle disputes between clashing beliefs and rather just agree to disagree. 2. Moral Relativism, as opposed to Moral Subjectivism, focuses on the differences in ethical point of view on a societal level. In the same case with Ethical Subjectivism it would be useless to compare and contrast groups that differ in their Ethical Framework. This problem manifests more when it comes to discussing diverse cultures and religious beliefs. Page 9 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics 3. Equating Morality and Religion together introduces questions such as whether morality is dependent on religion or not and if it is possible to come-up with moral standards void of any religious aspect. 4. Equating Morality and Law together introduces the question whether the law should be the basis of morality or not (Is what is legal also moral? Should all moral conducts be legalized? Is it possible to have a lawless but moral society?). 5. Contrasting Morality and Biology with one another introduces the question whether moral decisions are indeed crafted by our free will or they are just accidental causes of biological adaptation brought by natural selection and other evolutionary processes. 6. Related to the former challenge, the Is-Ought Fallacy (sometime interchanged with the Naturalistic Fallacy) introduces the problematic derivation of the prescription of an action (ought) from something that occurs naturally or something that is merely described to be happening (is). For example, some people claim that humans are naturally selfish, therefore, we ought to act selfishly since this is the case. This is a common (and unacceptable) error when the words is and ought are used within one sentence (the former is descriptive while the latter is prescriptive). However, we should keep in mind that not only is it grammatically incorrect, such statement yields no meaning. Despite the existence of these challenges, they will soon be revisited and even addressed when it comes to the discussion of various Ethical Frameworks. V. C o n c l u s i o n To sum up, Ethics is aimed at studying morality, tracing its origin from Folkways (basic survival instincts) to Mores (moral standards of society) and to Laws (codification of these moral standards). We’ve highlighted how the tension between society’s moral standards and an individual’s point of view emerges due to differences, thus introducing the role of the Moral Agent who, with the aid of freedom and obligation, uses reason to discover the underlying principles of morality while bearing in mind caution in encountering various challenges in discussing Ethics. After learning all the necessary basic concepts, we are now ready to discuss the various Ethical Frameworks or Theories that would serve as our possible moral compass. But before that, let us do a quick recap of the lessons you have learned. Page 10 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION 1. G i v e a t l e a s t t h re e v a l u e s t h a t y o u h a v e l e a r n e d f ro m y o u r p rev i o u s G M R C / E P s u b j e c t a n d ex p l a in t h e re l ev a n c e a n d importance of each one in the discussion of Ethics. 2. I n d i s c u s s i n g h ow t h e w o rd e t h i c a l c o u l d b e u s e d i n t w o w a y s , ex p l a i n h ow t h e p h ra s e “ E t h i c a l E t h i c a l T h e o r i s t s ” w o u l d m a ke s e n s e. 3. U s i n g s o m e re s e a rc h , l o o k f o r a p ra c t i c e h e re i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s t h a t c o u l d b e n a r ra t e d u s i n g t h e t r i p a r t i t e a n a l y s is o f F o l k w a y s - M o re s - L a w s ( l o o k f o r t h e p r i m i t i v e b a s i c i n s t i n c t t h a t re s u l t e d t o t h e c h o s e n c o n d u c t , ex p l a i n w h e re i t i s b e i n g p ra c t i c e d a n d w h y i t i s b e i n g p ra c t i c e d t h e re , g i v e o n e s p e c if i c l a w t h a t e i t h e r a i m s t o p ro m o t e / p ro t e c t o r p ro h i b i t s u c h c o n d u c t ). 4. N a r ra t e a n i n s t a n c e w h e n y o u h a v e m a d e a m o ra l d e c i s i o n a n d ex p l a i n h ow y o u w e re a b l e t o a r r i v e a t a s o l u t i o n u s i n g e i t h e r t h e D e d u c t i v e M o d e l o f M o ra l R e a s o n i n g o r t h e R e f l e c t iv e E q u i l ib r i u m M o d e l. 5. Based on the Six Challenges in discussing Ethics, choose one that you think is the most challenging for you and ex p l a i n h ow i t a f f e c t s y o u r d e c i s io n m a k i n g i n l i f e. I n a d d i t i o n , ex p l a i n h ow y o u a t t e m p t ( o r c o u l d a t t e m p t ) t o solve such challenge. Page 11 of 12 Module 1: Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics REFERENCES Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. T. Irwin. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co. 1111b5-1113a10 (pp. 33-36). Blackburn, Simon. “Seven Threats to Ethics”. In Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: OUP: 2001. Pp. 37-43. Harman, Gilbert, Kelby Mason & Walter Sinnott -Armstrong. “Moral Reasoning.” In The Moral Psychology Handbook, edited. J. Doris, pp. 206 -245. NY: OUP: 2010. Pp. 213-217, 238-241. Mothershead, John L. Ethics: Modern Conception of the Principles of Right. New York: Henry Holt and Co. 1955. Chapter 1, pp. 21 -35.. Rachels, James. “The Challenges of Cultural Relativism”, “Subjectivism in Ethics”, “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” In The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th edition. NY: McGraw -Hill, 2003. Pp 16-32, 32-47, 48-62. Sumner, William, “Folkways”, in Johnson, Oliver, ed. Ethics: Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. 1965. Pp. 289-310. Sumner, William, “The Case for Ethical Relativism” in Klemke, Kline & Hollinger, eds. Philosophy: The Basic Issues. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1982. Pp. 496-511. Aaron Paul D. Lusanta Jennica Rose A. de Guzman Keisha Christle Abog LAYOUT DESIGNER / PROOFREADER MODULE AUTHORS Page 12 of 12