Moral Education Finalized Draft PDF

**AMBO UNIVERSITY** **COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES** **DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES** **MODIFIED VERSION OF TEACHING MATERIAL PREPARED FOR MORAL AND CIVIC EDUCATION** **MODIFIED BY: DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES, AMBO UNIVERSITY** **MAY 26, 2023** {#section.TOCHeading} Table of Contents {#table-of-contents.TOCHeading} ================= **CHAPTER ONE: UNDERSTANDING CIVICS AND ETHICS.........\......................1** 1. 1.1. What is Ethics?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....1 2. 3. Ethics and Law..........................................................................................\...3 4. Moral Relativism....................................................................................\......4 5. What Makes an Action Moral?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....5 6. Civics and Civic Education as a Subject Matter.....................................................6 7. The Goals of Moral and Civic Education..............................................................7 **CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING ETHICAL THEORIES...........................12** 2. General Ethical Theories................................................................................12 1. Normative Ethics.................................................................................\.......12 1. Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)...........................................................12 2. Forms of Teleological (Consequentialism) Ethics...........................................\....13 3. Deontological Ethics (Non-Consequentialist)...................................................21 2. Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics...................................................\.................28 3. Ethical Decision Making and Moral Judgment.............................................\.........31 4. Lens for Decision Making.........................................................................31 5. Rationalization....................................................................................\...33 6. Types of Reasoning.................................................................................33 7. Testing Moral Arguments..........................................................................34 **CHAPTER THREE: STATE, GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENSHIP**...................36 Defining State............................................................................................36 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.1**.** Features of State.........................................................................................36 2. Types (forms) of State..................................................................................38 3. Classification of State: territorial basis................................................................41 4. Understanding Government........................................................................\....44 3.4.1. Models of National government..........\.....................................................\......46 5. Understanding Citizenship............................................................................48 1. Theorizing Citizenship..............................................................................49 2. Modes/Ways of Acquiring and Loosing Citizenship........................................\....53 1. Ways of Acquiring Citizenship....................................................................53 3.5.3. Modes of Acquiring Ethiopian Citizenship.........\...............................................53 3.5.4. Ways of Loosing Citizenship........................................................................56 **CHAPTER** **FOUR: CONSTITUTION, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS...........59** 4\. Understanding Constitution...........................................................................\...59 4.1. Constitutionalism.......................................................................................59 4.2**.** Peculiar Features of Constitution.....................................................................59 4.3. Function of State........................................................................................60 4. Classification of Constitutions.........................................................................63 4.5**.** Constitutional Experience of Ethiopia: Post 1931..................................................65 4.6. Democracy and Democratization......................................................................70 4.6.1. Defining Democracy.................................................................................70 4.6.2. Values and Principles of Democracy............................................................\...71 4.6.3. Principles of Democracy.............................................................................72 4.6.4. Democratization....................................................................................\...75 4.6.5. Actors of Democratization........................................................................\...75 4.7. Human Rights: Concepts and Theories.........................................................\......77 4.7.1. What are Human Rights?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....77 4.7.2. Categories of Human Rights......................................................................\...79 4.7.3. Derogation and Limitation on Human Rights.....................................................81 4.7.4. Non-derogablity of Human Rights...............................................................\...82 4.7.5. Implementation and Enforcement of Human Rights.................................\............83 **CHAPTER ONE: UNDERSTANDING CIVICS AND ETHICS** **1. Defining Civics, Ethics and Morality** 1. **What is Ethics?** Ethics is the science of conduct. It considers the actions of human beings with reference to their rightness or wrongness. The word ethics is derived from the Greek word *ethos*, which means character and from the Latin word mores, which means customs. Ethics is the study of what is right or good in human conduct or the science of the ideal involved in conduct. So, it is clear that ethics is the study which determines rightness or wrongness of actions. So, Ethics discusses men's habits or customs, or in other words their characters, the principles on which the habitually act and considers what it is that constitutes the rightness or wrongness of these principles, the good or evil of these habits. **Ethics is a normative science**. It is concerned with what ought to be done rather than what is the case. It differs from positive science. A positive science, natural science or descriptive science is concerned with what is. It deals with facts and explains them by their causes. In positive science there is no question of judging its objects in any way. But ethics does not deal with fact. Rather it deals with value. Therefore, it is clear that ethics is concerned with judgments of value, while positive science deals with judgments of facts. That is why ethics is not a positive science but a normative science. Normative ethics deals with standards or norms by which we can judge human actions to be right or wrong. For example, logic, aesthetics are also considered as normative sciences, because logic and aesthetics are concerned with truth and beauty. So, truth, beauty and value are the three ideals of logic, aesthetics and ethics respectively. The normative sciences differ from positive sciences in one more way; they do not merely describe the standards by which we judge; they are also concerned with the validity or truth of these standards. In ethics for example it is not enough to describe the rules by which men have tested their conduct, such as the Ten Commandments of the Hebrews we also ask in ethics why these rules are valid or on what grounds we ought to observe them. Generally Ethics is: 1. The critical examination and evaluation of what is good, evil, right and wrong in human conduct 2. A specific set of principles, values and guidelines for a particular group or organization. 3. Ethics is the study of goodness, right action and moral responsibility, it asks what choices and ends we ought to pursue and what moral principles should govern our pursuits and choices. 2. ##### **What is Morality?** The term morality comes from Latin word *moralitas* which means manner, character, and proper behavior. It refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong also referred to as good and evil. It can be used to mean the generally accepted code of conduct in a society, or within a sub-group of society. It relates to values expressed as: a matter of individual choice, those values to which we ought to aspire and those values shared within a culture, religious, secular, or philosophical community. This definition is clear when morality is spelt out and agreed upon by others. Morality and ethics are often used interchangeably in everyday speech as referring to justified or proper conduct. But ethics is usually associated with a certain conduct within a profession, for example, the code of ethics for the teaching profession. Morality is a more general term referring to the character of individuals and community, while ethics is used to refer to the formal study of moral conduct. It can be claimed that morality is related to praxis, but ethics is related to theory. Generally morality is: 1. Those principles and values that actually guide, for better or worse, an individual's personal conduct. 2. Morality is the informal system of rational beings by which they govern their behavior in order to lesson harm or evil and do good, this system, although informal, enjoys amazing agreement across time and cultures concerning moral rules, moral ideas and moral virtues. **Ethics** **Morality** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is philosophical study of the code, standards or norm of human conduct and it is more theoretical and general one. Refers to the code of conduct one follows while ethics is the study of moral conduct or the study of the code that one follows Ethics establish the standards, norms, or codes to be followed by human beings are the study of morality, moral principles, and moral decision making. Is the conformity of human behavior to the established code of conduct.If an action conform to the established code, it is called moral, if not immoral Is the development of reasonable standards and procedures for ethical decision-making Refers to the effort to guide one's conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by one's conduct Is a set of normative rules of conduct, a code, a standards that govern what one ought to do when the well-being, or duties to oneself, others or institutions is at stake. Has to do with what one should do, all things considered, not what, in fact, any of us *will* so in a particular instance Ethics and Law -------------- Law is a set of rules and regulations enforced by authority to control human behavior for the common good. Violations of these rules and regulations tend to result in penalties or punishment from the court of law. Ethics is moral; values and principles that govern the behavior of an individual. Ethics help to choose what is right and wrong. Ethics is susceptible to change due to new inventions, ideas and in formations. The main differences between law and ethics have been listed below: 1. Laws are a set of rules and regulations enforced by the government or authorities while ethics are morals and principles adapted by society from the environment. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 4. Moral Relativism ---------------- An action is morally wrong (or right) for someone if and only if that person's culture believes it is wrong (or right). According to the ethical relativist (sometimes called the cultural relativist), we just decide, as a society, which actions are morally wrong (and which are not). And once we do, then those actions are morally wrong for everyone in that society. So, morality is a subjective matter on this view, since moral truths depends upon what people think about morality. On this view, morality is basically a matter of personal taste (or societal taste, etc.). Some disagree, arguing that moral truths are objective; i.e., morality does not depend upon what people think. Morality is not a matter of taste. Rather, there are some things that are just plain wrong (or right) regardless of what anyone thinks. For example, ice cream is good is clearly a subjective truth, since it is only true for me because I think it is true. The earth orbits the sun on the other hand is an objective truth, because it would be true regardless of what anyone thinks. If I say that ice cream is good and you say that Ice cream is bad, we can both be right. But, if I say that the Earth is round and you say that the Earth is flat, we cannot both be right. One of us must be mistaken (and, in this example, you are mistaken). 5. **What Makes an Action Moral?** Sometimes we think of moral means morally good. Philosophically, it refers to an action which comes within the scope of morality, an action which is morally significant either in positive way (because it is good or right) or in a negative way (because the action is good or bad). Not all actions have a moral sense. Many of the actions we perform in life such as putting on a raincoat, sharpening a pencil, or counting apples, standing on your head, are not in themselves either good or bad acts. Such actions are morally neutral or non-moral. By contrast, stealing from your libraries, punching people or helping the disadvantage are considered as morally significant actions. The following are features that make an action moral. A. **A moral act involves an agent**: If something is a natural event or an action performed by animals, then it is morally neutral it does not appear on our moral radars. Humans can be moral agents, or any creatures that can freely and thoughtfully choose its actions will count as a moral agent. B. **A moral act involves intention:** An intention here refers to our motives that are important to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. If an action is done accidentally, it may be counted as a morally neutral action. However, some unintentional acts, such as those done through negligence, can be moral. Neglecting our duties, even accidentally, make us morally culpable. C. **A moral act affects others:** A moral action needs not only an agent and to be deliberate but also needs to affect others (those we might call moral patients) in significant ways, that is, an action that has harmful (be it physical, psychological, emotional, or depriving others of happiness) or beneficial consequences for others. Generally, a moral action is one which: - Is performed by agents, creatures that are capable of free choice/freewill - Is the result of intention; the action was done on purpose with a particular motive - Has a significant consequence on others in respect of harm or benefits it brings about. 6. **Civics and Civic Education as a Subject Matter** The word civics is derived from the Latin word *civi-tates;* which means citizens. Therefore, **civics** is the study of the theoretical and practical aspects of [**citizenship**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship) including its rights and duties. Civics deals with citizenship which is about state-individual relationship-it is a citizenship study. Therefore, Civics can be defined as a general study that speaks about everything surrounds human beings as well as leadership system that govern people. It speaks of internal and external affairs of the state including the history of human struggle as well as social, economic and political advancement and transformation in human history. ***In short civics is the study of participation, self-determination, negotiation, respect and tolerance in a democratic system.*** Civic education (also known as citizen education or democracy education) can be broadly defined as the provision of information and learning experiences to equip and empower citizens to participate in democratic processes. The education can take very different forms, including classroom-based learning, informal training, experiential learning, and mass media campaigns. Civic education can be targeted at children or adults, in developed or developing countries, and at the local, national or international level. As such, civic education is an approach that employs a range of different methods, and is often used in combination with other participatory governance tools. Civic education is concerned with three different elements: civic knowledge, civic skills and civic disposition. Civic knowledge refers to citizens' understanding of the workings of the political system and of their own political and civic rights and responsibilities (e.g. the rights to freedom of expression and to vote and run for public office, and the responsibilities to respect the rule of law and the rights and interests of others). Civic skills refer to citizens' ability to analyze, evaluate, take and defend positions on public issues, and to use their knowledge to participate in civic and political processes (e.g. to monitor government performance, or mobilize other citizens around particular issues). Civic dispositions are defined as the citizen traits necessary for a democracy (e.g. tolerance, public spiritedness, civility, critical mindedness and willingness to listen, negotiate, and compromise). Though the definition of civic education is an education that studies about the rights and responsibilities of citizens of a politically organized group of people, different writers define it in many ways. These different concepts and meanings were used to differentiate between a maximal and a minimal civic education. The minimal concept of civic education is content led, teacher-based, whole-class teaching and examination-based assessment. However, the maximal concept of civic education is comprised of knowledge, values and skills, and aims to prepare students for active, responsible participation. Unlike narrow minimalist civic education, it extends learning beyond the curriculum and classroom to all activities inside and outside school. In addition, it is highly dependent on interactive teaching, which requires discussion, debate and the creation of many opportunities for students to participate effectively. The Goals of Moral and Civic Education -------------------------------------- **A. The Need to Instill Citizens about their Rights and Duties:** The two phrases rights and duties co-exist with each other (they are termed as the two sides of the same coin) that regulate the values and behavioral patterns of an individual. For instance, the State has the obligation to provide health care services because citizens have the right to access that service. However, the State will be unable to ensure that citizens led a healthy life unless citizens themselves act responsibly with respect to their own health, in terms of a healthy diet, exercise, and the consumption of liquor and tobacco. Similarly, the state will be unable to meet the needs of children, the elderly or the disabled, if citizens do not agree to share this responsibility by providing some care for their relatives; the state cannot protect the environment if citizens are unwilling to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste byproducts in their own homes; and attempts to create a fairer society will flounder if citizens are chronically intolerant of difference and generally lacking a sense of justice. There are four issues to look into the interplay between rights and duties. First, one\'s right implies the other\'s duty. This means every right of an individual automatically imposes a duty on others. For example, the right to freedom of movement imposes a duty on others not to interfere with the right of movement of any body, except regulated by law. Second, one\'s right implies one\'s duty to recognize similar rights of others. This implies that every exercise of right is subject to restrictions. For example, one has the freedom of speech and expression, but, at the same time, the practitioner has to bear in mind that the exercise of free speech and expression in no way affects the rights of others. Third, one should exercise his rights for the promotion of social good. If any person tries to misuse the rights, which affect the rights of others or of the society or state, the Government has a duty to take appropriate legal action to prevent such acts. For example, if a person tries to abuse his right to freedom of speech and expression, the State can take legal action. Any such action by the State is justified. Fourth, the State being a nucleus organ needs to take care of the social and legal interests of all its individuals. From this point of view, the State has the obligation to discharge duties towards its citizens. As the State guarantees and protects the rights of everybody, one has a duty to support the State in its legal endeavors. Therefore, there is no doubt that there must be a balance between citizenship rights and obligations. **B. The Need for Participant Political Culture**: Political culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments which give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system. Political culture shapes what people expect of their political system, what they see as possibilities for their own action, and what rights and responsibilities the various actors are perceived to have. There are three kinds of political cultures: parochial cultures, subject cultures, and participant cultures. In parochial cultures citizens have low cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation regarding the political systems, government powers and functions and even their privileges and duties. In such political culture, the role of citizens in the political sphere of their countries is insignificant since individuals thinks of their families advantage as the only goal to pursue. In subject cultures, there is high cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation towards the political system and policy outputs, but orientations towards input objects (like political parties) and the self as active participants are minimal. Thus, orientation towards the system and its outputs is channeled via a relatively detached, passive relationship on the part of the citizen. Subject cultures are most compatible with centralized, authoritarian political structures. In participant cultures, members of society have high cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientation to the political system, the input objects, the policy outputs, and recognize the self as an active participant in the polity. Largely, participant cultures are most compatible with democratic political structures because the qualities and attitudes of citizens determine the health and stability of a country's democracy. Democracy can only thrive when citizens understand and participate actively in civic and political life from the perspective that participation is important, but informed and educated participation is more important. In active citizenship, also, participation is not restricted simply to the political dimension rather it also includes socio-cultural and environmental activities. This understanding of active citizenship is ethically-driven where activities should support the community and should not contravene the principles of human rights and the rule of law. The role to be played by civics and ethics is, therefore, acculturation learners with the attributes of active citizenship, democracy and equip them with the skills of participation in civil society, community and/or political life to ensure that the young possesses a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values at their disposal. So that they can develop and practice civic skills, offering opportunities for open discussions about political and social issues, fully discharges their role as citizens, and make informed and educated decisions about candidates and public policy. Generally, the subject plays undeniable role in democratization process through solving societal problems, socializing and re-socializing individuals by instilling desired values, helping individuals develop feeling of respect to others, develop a sense of belongingness and patriotism, and the like. **C**. **The Need for Relevant Knowledge, Skills and Positive Attitudes**: Relevant knowledge is a type of knowledge which is useful in dealing with a particular problem at a period of time. However, knowledge would remain inert knowledge unless it is functional or put into practice to achieve a certain goal. Still knowledge would remain infirm if the person is not equipped with right attitudes and requisite skills which are basic to enable him/her perform his/her role as a credible member of a society. Hence, the State in question will do better in its bid for development if most of her citizens are skillful in one field or the other and also demonstrate positive attitudes at the work place. Right attitudes are very essential ingredients needed to ensure harmony and peaceful co-existence among people. It is reasonable to claim that skillful manpower is a pre-requisite for every nation that wishes to develop but a skillful manpower without positive attitudes to work is likely to result in counter production because vices like corruption, bribery, abuse of power, lateness to and work absenteeism among others will pop their ugly heads. **D. The Issue of Fostering Intercultural Societies:** There cognition of cultural diversity is certainly meritorious, but civics and ethics education could move a step forward by appealing to the notion of inter-culturalism, which explicitly asserts the need for relationship, dialogue, reciprocity and interdependence. Beyond differences of semantics, civics and ethics education is a useful instrument not only towards tolerating or celebrating each other, but also about nurturing dynamic exchanges based on interaction, openness and effective solidarity. The subject helps to integrate the best traditions of multicultural and intercultural education to develop political and pedagogical strategies that contribute to overcome discrimination and to nurture genuine, inclusive dialogue among cultural groups. **E. The Issue of Inclusiveness**: Civics and ethics as a subject is thought to nurture new and inclusive relations and practices in both public and private spaces that recognize gender differences while ensuring inclusiveness and equity. It should also go beyond the idea of quotas for women in formal politics, or strategies to empower women to play male politics. Hence, promoting democracy and inclusiveness in public spaces as well as in families, workplaces, unions, and other institutions become the area of focus of civics and ethics. **F. The Issue of Peace-building**: in an environment characterized by increasing militarization, terrorism, civil wars and genocidal acts, it is urgent for citizenship education to advance pedagogical strategies to promote cooperation, dialogue, and a sustainable peace that is based on justice. It is obvious that civics and ethics alone cannot bring peace to our planet, yet it can make a valuable contribution to create the subjective conditions for more peaceful situations. This includes the development of competencies for peacemaking, conflict resolution, healing, reconciliation and reconstruction. It also includes an understanding of nonviolent civil disobedience philosophies, strategies and skills. The aim of moral/ethical and civic education is to provide people to make decisions by their free wills. Teaching ethics has an important and necessary place in education. Students who graduated from universities may be well educated persons in their professions but it is not enough. Moral and Civics Education is based on and seeks to promote in students core moral, ethical, democratic, and educational values such as: A. Respect for life B. Respect for reasoning C. Fairness D. Concern for the welfare of others E. Respect for diversity F. Peaceful resolution of conflict In sum the goals of teaching civics and ethics at any level of educational institutions is to produce competent, high moral standard society and responsible citizens who can ask and use their rights and fulfill their obligations in accordance with the laws of their respective country. **CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING ETHICAL THEORIES** 2. **General Ethical Theories** Ethical theories provide part of the decision-making foundation for decision making when Ethics are in play because these theories represent the viewpoints from which individuals seek guidance as they make decisions. Ethical theories are attempts to provide a clear, unified account of what our ethical obligations are. Different ethical theories provide a unique perspective in ethical analysis when a person is on the path of decision making. Ethicists often disagree about the nature of those standards and desirable qualities and follow different paths in establishing standards and discovering which qualities are desirable. There are three categories of ethical theories: normative ethics, non-normative ethics and applied ethics. 1. **Normative Ethics** The word 'normative' is an adjective which comes from the word 'norm', which means a standard or a rule, so moral norms are standards or principles with which people are expected to comply. People have different ideas about what these standards are, so the various normative theories of ethics therefore focus on what they claim makes an action a moral action: on what things are good or bad, and what kind of behaviour is right as opposed to wrong. Normative Ethics involves an attempt to determine precisely what moral standards to follow so that our actions may be morally right or good. Normative ethics classified into two branches: teleological (consequentialist) and deontological (non-consequentialist) ethics. **2.1.1**. **Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)** Teleological Ethics (consequentialist) referred as the end justifies the means. It believes in purposes and goals of an action. It stress that the consequences of an action determines the morality or immorality of a given action which means an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral depending on what happens because of it. One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral principles but if the result, moral act is harmful, or bad it must be judged as morally or ethically wrong act. An act is right if and only if it or the rule under which it falls produces, will probably produce, or is intended to produce at least as great a balance of good over evil as any available alternative, and an act is wrong if and only if it does not do so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So as to consequential ethical theory a moral right or moral wrong is dependent on the outcome of an action. Thus, in teleological ethics, consequences drive the moral decision. For example, most people believe that lying is wrong, but if telling a lie do no harm and help to make a person happy or save someone, this action would be right in teleological ethics. However, it is not always easy to determine the possible outcomes or consequences of our actions. Hence, this is a weakness teleological ethics. 2. **Forms of Teleological (Consequentialism) Ethics** A. **Hedonism** Hedonism is the general term for those theories that regards happiness or pleasure as the supreme end of life. Hedonism is the term derived from the Greek word *hēdonē,* which means delight. Hedonism is a school of thought that argues pleasure is the only intrinsic good. It differs from utilitarianism in focusing more on individual pleasure than collective good. For example, if eating a certain food will bring an individual pleasure but harm others, it is considered moral according to this theory. The claims that pleasure and pain are the only things of ultimate importance is what makes hedonism distinctive and philosophically interesting. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure and minus pain. According to the nature of seeking pleasure hedonism can be divided broadly into two. These are psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism. **As to psychological hedonism** men always do seek pleasure i.e. that pleasure in some from is always ultimate object of desire. This theory holds that this is not the way people ought to be; this is the way people actually are they naturally seek pleasure. It is called psychological hedonism because it simply affirms the seeking of pleasure as a psychological fact. Psychological hedonism is simply a statement of fact. **As to ethical hedonism** only pleasure has positive importance and all and only pain or **displeasure has negative importance**. Whether or not people pursue pleasure, they should or ought to do so. A right action is productive of pleasure; a wrong action is productive of pain. Ethical hedonism is a theory of value, a theory of the ground upon which one form of action ought to be preferred to others. Ethical hedonism\'s goal is to make everyone as happy as possible, but achieving total happiness or happiness in every single person is unrealistic. Instead, it strives to create as much happiness as possible for as many as possible. No matter how evil or destructive a person is, an ethical hedonist believes that it is a bad thing if that person is unhappy or hurt, as his happiness is just as important as anyone else\'s, and his suffering just as undesirable as anyone else\'s. An ethical hedonist would decide to harm a person only if it results in a greater amount of good or happiness for more people. An ethical hedonist would harm a [nice guy](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceGuy) for the same reason, though nice people are much less likely to be a subject of harm because they by nature do not intend to hurt people. Abuse, violence and other violations or harmful crimes are immoral in ethical hedonism not because they are bad in principle as in deontological ethics, but because they result in suffering and sadness. Firstly, the acts usually generate more suffering and deprivation of happiness (for the victim) than it creates happiness (for the abuser or offender). Second, if abuse was accepted, then people would be more afraid and thus less happy. To prevent, stop or deter these action an ethical hedonist may find it justified to harm or otherwise deprive of happiness the person responsible, but not because the culprit is guilty or deserving of it and the ethical hedonist would rather find a solution that does not hurt or make unhappy either party. ### Ethical Egoism ### [Ethical egoism](https://helpfulprofessor.com/ethical-egoism-examples/)** is a type of consequentialist theory that states that individuals should act out of self-interest and pursue what is best for their own well-being rather than considering what might benefit others or society.** A real-life example of this would be someone who chooses to invest in stocks with higher potential returns, even though doing so has the potential to have unintended consequences on other investors or markets in general. ### Ethical Altruism ### **Ethical altruism carries the opposite sentiment from ethical egoism.** It looks at scenarios where individuals' actions are motivated by the desire to benefit others rather than themselves and places value in those acts regardless of their outcome or consequence. For instance, according to this theory, choosing to donate money to charities without expecting anything back other than knowing you helped make someone's life better would be considered an act of altruistic behavior. Utilitarianism -------------- Utilitarianism has been an influential, widely held and challenging moral and political theory over at least the last two centuries. Utilitarianism is a teleological (goal-based) theory in that it judges the morality of actions or rules according to the extent to which they serve the goal of maximizing utility. Utilitarianism claims that, what is good is utility which defined as pleasure or happiness or the satisfaction of desires or of interests. It claims that, morality is concerned with maximizing utility, that is, happiness or welfare. Whichever way the good is defined, utilitarianism holds that it is rational to maximize it. Utilitarianism claims that fundamental principle of morality is that the right action or rule is the one that would maximize utility. In calculating which actions or rules would maximize utility, the utility of everyone affected must be taken into account and treated equally. Benefits to some may outweigh harms to others. For utilitarianism, whether an action, policy, rule or institution is right or wrong depends on whether its overall consequences are good or bad for all affected. An action which has the best consequences is right. For example, killing one person to save five others would be considered moral according to this theory because it would result in greater overall happiness than if no one was killed. **Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism** Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were the main founders of utilitarianism. **A. Bentham's Utilitarianism (1748--1832)** Bentham claimed that humans are naturally governed by pain and pleasure. These alone determine all we do, say and think. And these alone indicate what we ought to do the standard of right and wrong. Utility for Bentham means producing benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness or preventing mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness. The value of a pleasure or pain depends on its intensity, duration and probability. Bentham notes that pleasure is not the only value the arts and sciences, for example, are valuable too. He replies that the value of all arts and sciences is exactly in proportion to the pleasure they yield. If the game of pushpin gives more pleasure than music or poetry, it is more valuable than either. So, for Bentham utility (pleasure or happiness) defines what is good. Bentham proposes the principle of utility, or the greatest happiness principle. This is the principle that approves or disapproves of every action according to its tendency to augment or diminish happiness. It applies to every action, not only of individuals but also of government. Bentham uses the hedonic calculus which decides the value of pleasure by seven measures of quantity: duration, intensity, certainty or uncertainty, remoteness or propinquity, fecundity, extent and purity. Bentham is well-known for his treating of all pleasures as of equal value. By this he means not that all pleasures are of exactly equal, but that the legislator who his work on utilitarianism is aimed at should not be valuing one pleasure above another. **B. Mill's Utilitarianism (1806--1873)** Mill modified Bentham's version of utilitarianism. Mill remarks that ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof, so he cannot prove the utilitarian doctrine that happiness is the only thing desirable, as an end. He observes that the only proof that something is visible or audible is that people see or hear it. Similarly, the only possible evidence that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it. However, it may be objected that Mill here conflates the ethical question of what is worthy of desire with the factual question of what is desired. Mill considers the objection that to suppose that life has no higher end than pleasure is a doctrine worthy only of swine. In reply, he observes that humans have higher mental faculties than animals and human happiness must include gratification of those faculties. The pleasures of the intellect, feelings, imagination and moral sentiments are more valuable than those of mere sensation. Compared to bodily pleasures, mental pleasures are more desirable and more valuable. They are of a higher quality in that almost everyone who has experienced both kinds of pleasure prefers to use their higher faculties. No intelligent, educated, sensitive or moral person would prefer to be the opposite even if they would then be more satisfied. John Stuart Mill saw pleasures in two categories i.e. higher and lower pleasures. The lower, or elementary, include eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation. The higher include high culture, scientific knowledge, intellectuality, and creativity. Although the lower pleasures are more intensely gratifying, they also lead to pain when overindulged in. The higher pleasures tend to be more long term, continuous, and gradual. Mill argued that the higher, or more refined pleasures are superior to the lower ones: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Humans are the kind of creatures who require more to be truly happy. They want the lower pleasures, but they also want deep friendship, intellectual ability, and culture, the ability to create and appreciate art, knowledge, and wisdom. **Varieties of Contemporary Utilitarianism:** **Act-utilitarianism and Rule-utilitarianism** A. **Act Utilitarian** According to act-utilitarianism, the right act is the one that will maximize utility. However, it need not claim that we always have to work out the consequences of each possible action before acting; we often lack the time to do so. Rather, certain rules, such as keeping promises, may be adopted because following them generally has good consequences. In addition, personal bias may distort utilitarian reasoning while following a rule is more likely to maximize utility. Act-utilitarianism applies the utility principle to each possible act: the right action is that which would maximize utility. In most circumstances, truth-telling, respecting property, keeping promises and not harming others have the best consequences and so maximize utility. However, in some circumstances, lying, stealing, breaking a promise, harming or even killing would have better overall consequences than any alternative and so would be the right action, according to act-utilitarianism, for which the end justifies the means. B. **Rule Utilitarian** In rule-utilitarianism, rules are only rough and ready rules of thumb, which generally have good consequences but which ought to be broken when obeying them would have bad consequences. Rule-utilitarianism applies the utility principle not to acts but to possible moral rules, in order to work out the ideal set of rules for society to follow. The right rules are those that, if generally followed, would maximize utility. In contrast to act-utilitarianism, the principle of utility is not the criterion of the rightness of actions. Rather, right actions are those that comply with the utility maximizing rules. Lying, stealing, breaking promises and killing generally have bad consequences, so rules prohibiting them may be justified on utilitarian grounds. Actions that comply with those utility-maximizing rules are right. So, rule-utilitarians argue that the most effective way to maximize utility is to adhere to rules that are chosen to maximize utility. Rules serve to maximize utility because they are easier to communicate, inculcate, remember and apply than are act-by-act utility calculations. For instance, obeying highway speed limits might cause some individuals to miss their destination on time. Still, it will help reduce car accidents, potentially saving many lives. ### Rule-utilitarianism justifies rules that typically maximize utility. However, there will be circumstances in which breaking the rule would maximize utility. If rule-utilitarianism says that the rule should not be followed when doing so would not maximize utility, then it reverts to act-utilitarianism. If it insists that the rule should be followed even when doing so would not maximize utility, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it abandons utilitarianism for irrational rule worship. ### Rule-utilitarianism might respond to this dilemma by including exceptions in the rules. Since following simple rules, against lying, stealing, breaking promises or harming others, would not maximize utility in some situations, rule-utilitarianism must reformulate the rules to include the exceptions, thus permitting, for example, lying or killing when necessary to prevent serious harm. However, formulating the rules that would maximize utility would require including more and more exceptions until arriving at the utility-maximizing rules, which would forbid lying, killing, and so on, except when doing so would maximize utility. Rule-utilitarianism would thus arrive back at act-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism may reply that rules with many exceptions may be the utility-maximizing rules in theory but would be too complicated and too unpredictable and so would not be the utility maximizing rules in practice. Simpler rules would maximize utility. But then rule-utilitarianism again becomes vulnerable to the act-utilitarian objection that it would require acting on a rule in cases when doing so would not maximize utility. ### These distinctions pleasure/happiness/preferences/interests, total/average, act/rule and direct are independent of each other, so together they generate many possible forms of utilitarianism. However, all forms of utilitarianism share the principle that utility maximization is the criterion of rightness: The right act or rule is one that would maximize total or average utility. ### Criticisms of Utilitarianism Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good. For example, let's suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then the end justifies the means. ### In relation to John Stuart Mill's classification of higher and lower pleasures, a common criticism of simple versions of the theory such as Bentham's utilitarianism is that they reduce the subtleties of human life to a stark calculation of animal like pleasures, with no concern for how these pleasures are produced. This gave utilitarianism a bad name and it was often mocked as a doctrine only worthy of swine. John Stuart Mill defends utilitarianism from such criticism with his version which differs from Jeremy Bentham's simple version: Mill's differentiation between higher and lower pleasures puts forward that intellectual pleasures are intrinsically more valuable that physical pleasures. Bentham however treats all pleasures as equal to each other. So, when utilitarianism is described as a doctrine worthy only of swine, Mill argues that it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig; and better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool. His defence is that human beings are capable of intellectual pleasures as well as physical ones, whereas pigs cannot enjoy intellectual pleasures. In his view, humans who have experienced intellectual pleasures will prefer them to lower, physical ones. Those who still are lead astray by lower physical ones are falling for immediate sensual gratification, even though they know full well that higher, intellectual pleasures are more worthwhile. ### John Stuart Mill's idea of higher and lower pleasures has been viewed as flawed in itself. It has been criticized as a self-serving idea. For example, an intellectual will view his preferred enjoyments as a higher, more important pleasure. Therefore, as an intellectual, it could be argued that Mill himself is biased towards what constitutes as higher and lower pleasures. ### A further and harsh criticism of utilitarianism is that the theory would justify slavery. This is as long as the slaves were happy or the overall happiness gained by the beneficiaries of the slavery was calculated as than the slave's unhappiness. Bentham fiercely denies this to be the case, as he argues that the choices of human beings give the best inclination of what makes humans happy, and slavery by definition is never a choice and therefore slaves can never be said to be happy. ### Bentham is also well known for his application of utilitarianism as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This can subsequently be translated to mean that utilitarianism sacrifices the unfortunate few the powerful many. Therefore it has been argued by some that regarding the slavery example mentioned previously; if the vast economic benefits of slavery outweighed the unhappiness of the slave's then slavery is still favoured by utilitarianism. Bentham argues against this however as he claims the greatest happiness for the greatest number should be applied in a way that the interest of the powerless many should be more important than the interests of the powerful few. ### Another fundamental criticism of utilitarianism is that it ignores justice. If framing an innocent man for a crime that would reduce the further riots and pain that looking for the real guilty person would incur, utilitarian theory would suggest that this would be the optimal choice as although an innocent man will suffer, for a greater number of people less pain will be caused, incurring in a calculation of more pleasure overall. Therefore, if the sole aim of utilitarian theory is to maximise pleasure and reduce pain for the greater number, justice will be ignored in situations such as this example. Bentham however argues that it is a serious misrepresentation to say that utilitarian's would be willing to ignore justice and punish an innocent man in the name of the greater good. ### Another problem with utilitarianism is the impracticality of calculating the utility of actions in real time. The calculation of utility is said to be self-defeating as by the time the best utilitarian course of action has been calculated and decided, the opportunity to take this action may well have passed. How can one calculate which of all possible actions will maximise the most happiness overall. What if one is in a dilemma and has a decision to make quickly? In high pressure situations, one usually does not have time to sit down and make exact calculations regarding which decision will bring about the most happiness and minimise pain. Mill deflected this objection with the response that humans learn general moral principle though experience that can later be relied on in such situations. Exact calculations are not necessary for each situation in life as this would be impractical. Also, one can cultivate habits and train individual character, so that people become disposed to act in ways that are happiness-promoting. I feel his reply is valid as utilitarianism as a theory is still in use when making decisions in ordinary situations without exact calculations. It is logical to assume common sense moral rules as guidance when making decisions without needing to apply exact calculations. 3. **Deontological Ethics (Non-Consequentialist)** Deontology is referred as the means justifies the end. Its name comes from the Greek word *deon*, meaning duty. This is a theory that the rightness or wrongness of moral action is determined, at least partly with reference to formal rules of conduct rather than consequences or result of an action. It is an emphasis on the intentions, motives, moral principles or performance of duty rather than results, as the sign of right action/morality and immorality. It is a duty based and according to this theory, the consequences or results of our action have nothing to do with their rightness or wrongness. A. **The Divine Command Theory** According to Divine Command Theory ethical principles are simply the commands of God. They derive their validity from God's commanding them, and they mean commanded by God. Without God, there would be no universally valid morality. We can analyze the divine command theory into three separate theses: A. Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God B. Moral rightness simply means willed by God and moral wrongness means being against the will of God. C. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary. 1. Act A is wrong if and only if it is contrary to the command of God. 2. Act A is right (required) if and only if it is commanded by God. 3. Act A is morally permissible if and only if it is permitted by the command of God. 4. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically wrong, required, or permitted. In accordance with Divine Command Theory, morality not only originates with God, but moral rightness simply means willed by God and moral wrongness means being against the will of God. That is, an act is right in virtue of being permitted by the will of God, and an act is wrong in virtue of being against the will of God. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary. So we may ask, if God does not exist, everything is permissible? If so, nothing is forbidden or required. Without God, we have moral nihilism. If there is no God, then nothing is ethically wrong, required, or permitted. ##### **Problems with the Divine Command Theory** 1\. Divine Command Theory would seem to make the attribution of goodness to God redundant. When we say God is good, we think we are ascribing a property to God; but if good simply means what God commands or wills, and then we are not attributing any property to God. Our statement God is good merely means God does whatever he wills to door God practices what he preaches, and the statement God commands us to do what is good merely is the logically empty statement God commands us to do what God commands us to do. 2\. Divine Command Theory is that it seems to make morality into some-thing arbitrary. If God's decree is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, it would seem to be logically possible for such heinous acts as rape, killing of the innocent for the fun of it, and gratuitous cruelty to become morally good actions if God suddenly decided to command us to do the same things. B. **Right Theory** In ethical theories based on rights, the rights established by a society are protected and given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow her laptop for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the laptop now has a right to the laptop in the afternoon. A major complication of this theory on a larger scale is that one must decipher what the characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide what the society's goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. C. **Kantian Moral Philosophy** Kant is a deontologist; from the Greek, which is the science of duties. For Kant, morality is not defined by the consequences of our actions, our emotions, or an external factor. Morality is defined by **duties** and one's action is moral if it is an act motivated by duty. According to Kant the only thing that is good in itself is the good will. The will is what drives our actions and grounds the intention of our act. It is good when it acts from duty. To clarify, Kant thinks the good will is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. If we think about the other goods and things that we value, such are not good without qualification. For example, we value knowledge, but such can be used to commit atrocities in the world, so knowledge is good sometimes. The same can be said of courage. We value courage, but a suicide bomber also exhibits courage. So, courage can only be good sometimes. We can think of other examples as well. This leads Kant to claim that the good will is the only thing good without qualification or the only thing that is intrinsically good. Accordingly, the will is a good will provided it acts from duty. Kant recognizes that it is difficult to determine one's intentions, so he makes a distinction between acting in conformity with duty and acting from duty. To illustrate this distinction, let's take the example of three young men who see an elderly woman needing help across the street. Man A decides he will help the woman across the street because if he didn't he would feel guilty all day. Man B decides he will help the woman across the street because he recognizes her as his neighbor, Mrs. Bontu. Bontu makes the best cookies in the neighborhood. So, Man B helps her because he reasons that he will be rewarded. Man C decides he will help the woman across the street because it is the right thing to do; he understands that he has a moral obligation to help others in need when he can. The results of all three individuals are the same the woman is helped across the street. If we were looking at this from a utilitarian perspective, all three of the young men would be morally praiseworthy because in all three cases, happiness or well-being is increased (or pain is relieved). However, for Kant, only one of the young men's actions have moral worth and it is Man C; he understands what his moral duty is and he acts from it. The other two act only in conformity with duty they are driven by some other goal or desire aside from duty itself. Duties are principles that guide our actions. Duties are imperatives in the sense that they tell us what to do. Kant recognizes that there are different types of imperatives in his distinction between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative. An imperative is essentially a ought; something I ought to do. Hypothetical imperatives are the oughts that direct my actions provided I have certain goals or interests. In fact, these oughts are entirely dependent upon my goals or interests. For example, if I want to be a good basketball player I ought to practice free throws or if I want to go to law school I ought to take a logic class. If I change my goal and decide to be a baseball player or a welder instead then my oughts may also change. Hypothetical imperatives have nothing to do with morality. However a categorical imperative does not depend upon my desires or wants. These are necessary and always binding and are the oughts that determine what our moral duties are. Even if I don't want to help the elderly person across the street, if I have a duty to do so, my ought is binding. We should all be familiar enough with feeling we must do something even if we'd rather do something else. Kant's moral theory has three formulas for the categorical imperative. So, if you're facing a moral dilemma you must determine whether or not your action is permissible according to the formulas. Simply put, think of the formulas as tests that have to be passed in order for a principle or act to be moral. Formula one states that we ought to act in a way such that the maxim, or principle, of our act can be willed a universal law. If your maxim cannot be universalized then that act is morally off limits. For example, if I am considering stealing a loaf of bread, I have to ask myself if my maxim can be made a universal law. This would look something like this: Is it okay for all people to steal all the time? The answer is no; the maxim itself would be self-defeating because if everyone stole all the time there would be no private property and stealing would no longer be possible. The second formula states that we ought to treat humanity (self and others) as an end and never as a mere means. Essentially, this entails that I treat all persons with respect and dignity; I help others achieve their goals when possible, and I avoid using them as tools or objects to further my own goals. For Kant, since humans have the capacity for autonomy and rationality, it is crucial that we treat humans with respect and dignity. The third formula states that we act on principles that could be accepted within a community of other rational agents. The final formulation of the Categorical Imperative is a combination of CI-1 and CI-2. It asks us to imagine a kingdom which consists of only those people who act on CI-1. They never act on a maxim which cannot become a universal law. In such a kingdom people would treat people as ends, because CI-2 passes CI-1. This is why CI-3 is often called the Kingdom of Ends formulation: The third formula, the kingdom of ends, moves us from the individual level to the social level. In general, Kant's moral philosophy focuses on fairness and the value of the individual. His method rests on our ability to reason, our autonomy (i.e. our ability to give ourselves moral law and govern our own lives), and logical consistency. He also offers an objective sense of morality in the form of absolute duties, duties that are binding regardless of our desires, goals, or outcomes. D. **Virtue Ethics** Aristotle, the founder of virtue ethics believed that human beings are unique in having a potential they can fulfill by their own efforts. The only way to fulfill this potential, and achieve happiness, he argued, is to acquire the virtues. A virtue is a state or disposition of a person. This is a reasonable intuitive claim; if someone is generous, say, then she has a character of a certain sort; she is dispositionally, that is, habitually and reliably, generous. A virtue, though, is not a habit in the sense in which habits can be mindless, sources of action in the agent that bypass her practical reasoning. A virtue is a disposition to act, not an entity built up within me and productive of behavior; it is my disposition to act in certain ways and not others. A virtue, unlike a mere habit, is a disposition to act for reasons, and so a disposition that is exercised through the agent\'s practical reasoning; it is built up by making choices and exercised in the making of further choices. When an honest person decides not to take something to which he is not entitled, this is not the upshot of a causal buildup from previous actions but a decision, a choice that endorses his disposition to be honest. The virtue ethicist argues that what matters morally is not what we do at a time, but what we become over time. To the virtue ethicist it is the acquisition of a good character that is or should be our moral aim. Importantly the virtue ethicist rejects the idea that we should: follow rules try to produce certain consequences. For instance, despite his fear a fireman judges that running again into the burning house might enable him to save a child. He springs into action. Sadly he fails to save the child and injures himself in the attempt. Furthermore, an unemployed biologist is interviewed for his dream job. The interview goes well until he discovers the company is funded by a Christian organisation that expects employees to be Christian. Although he could get away with claiming to be a Christian, the biologist doesn't want to lie and so loses the job. Importantly we cannot be born virtuous; virtue is something that must be acquired. Being virtuous is a matter of acquiring the right habits. Once you have become virtuous you will: - Know what the right action is; - Perform the right action; - Perform the right action because it is the right action. **Problems for Virtue Ethics** - How do we know who is virtuous? - Are there any virtuous people? - Is an act virtuous because a virtuous person performs it, or does the virtuous person perform it because it is a virtuous act? ### Ross' (1877-1971) Theory of Prima Facie Duties ### *Prima facie* is a Latin term that is commonly understood to mean on the first appearance or based on the first impression. According to Ross, a prima facie duty is a duty that is binding or obligatory, other things being equal. A prima facie duty is a duty that is binding (obligatory), that is, unless it is overridden or trumped by another duty or duties. Another way of putting it is that where there is a prima facie duty to do something, there is at least a fairly strong presumption in favor of doing it. Common examples include the duty to tell the truth, obey the law, protect people from harm, and keep one's promises. An act is a prima facie duty when there is a moral reason in favor of doing the act, but one that can be outweighed by other moral reasons. An act is a prima facie wrong when there is a moral reason against doing the act, but one that can be outweighed by other moral reasons. An act is a prima facie wrong when it has at least one wrong-making feature. For instance, if I have promised to meet a friend at a particular time for some trivial purpose, I should certainly think myself justified in breaking my engagement if by doing so I could prevent a serious accident or bring relief to the victims of one. ### The promise/accident example: - ### I promise to meet a friend for lunch. - ### On the way there, I witness an accident - ### If I keep my promise to meet my friend, someone will die. - ### If I break my promise, I can help at the accident, and save a life. - ### I thus have a prima facie duty to meet my friend (since I promised that I would meet him, and that I promised to do something is a moral reason in favor of doing it). - ### But I also have a prima facie duty to help at the accident (since this would prevent serious harm to someone, and that an act would prevent harm is a moral reason in favor of doing it). - ### I thus have a conflict of prima facie duties. Ethical challenges surface, however, when *prima facie duties* conflict, as they sometimes do. Conflicts among prima facie duties constitute ethical dilemmas, that is, conflicts among one's moral duties and obligations. **Ross's list of Prima Facie Duties** A. **Fidelity:** If you make a promise, you have a prima facie obligation to keep it. B. **Reparations:** If you have wronged someone, you have a prima facie obligation to repair it, or to make it right. C. **Gratitude:** If someone has benefitted you, you have a prima facie obligation to express your gratitude. D. **Justice:** See to it that goods are distributed fairly. E. **Beneficence:** Help a brother out. (continued) (or sister!) F. **Self-Improvement:** Make yourself a better person. G. Ross recognizes that situations will arise when H. we must choose between two conflicting I. duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow J. my neighbor's gun and promise to return it K. when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, L. my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for M. the gun so that he can take vengeance on N. someone. On the one hand, the duty of O. fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the P. other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence Q. obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus R. not return the gun. According to Ross, I will S. intuitively know which of these duties is my T. actual duty, and which is my apparent or U. prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of V. nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty W. and I should not return the gun. X. Ross recognizes that situations will arise when Y. we must choose between two conflicting Z. duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow A. my neighbor's gun and promise to return it B. when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, C. my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for D. the gun so that he can take vengeance on E. someone. On the one hand, the duty of F. fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the G. other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence H. obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus I. not return the gun. According to Ross, I will J. intuitively know which of these duties is my K. actual duty, and which is my apparent or L. prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of M. nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty N. and I should not return the gun. O. Ross recognizes that situations will arise when P. we must choose between two conflicting Q. duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow R. my neighbor's gun and promise to return it S. when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, T. my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for U. the gun so that he can take vengeance on V. someone. On the one hand, the duty of W. fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the X. other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence Y. obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus Z. not return the gun. According to Ross, I will A. intuitively know which of these duties is my B. actual duty, and which is my apparent or C. prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of D. nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty E. and I should not return the gun. F. Ross recognizes that situations will arise when G. we must choose between two conflicting H. duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow I. my neighbor's gun and promise to return it J. when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, K. my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for L. the gun so that he can take vengeance on M. someone. On the one hand, the duty of N. fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the O. other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence P. obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus Q. not return the gun. According to Ross, I will R. intuitively know which of these duties is my S. actual duty, and which is my apparent or T. prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of U. nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty V. and I should not return the gun. 1. Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics ================================ The prefix *Meta* is derived from the Greek for beyond. Non normative ethics consists of either a factual investigation of moral behavior or analysis of the meaning of the terms used in moral discourse and an examination of the moral reasoning by which moral beliefs can be shown to be true or false. Meta-ethics is therefore a form of study that is beyond the topics considered in normative or applied ethics. Meta-ethics is a major field of enquiry in philosophy. Meta ethics is the study of how we engage in ethics. Thus, the Meta ethicist has a role more similar to a football commentator rather than to a referee or player. The Meta ethicist judges and comments on how the ethical game is being played rather than advancing practical arguments, or kicking the football, themselves. For example, the Meta ethicist might comment on the meaning and appropriateness of ethical language, just as the football commentator might remark on the appropriateness of particular tactics or set-piece routines. Meta-ethical conclusions do not tell us how we should morally act or which type of decision is morally correct in any one particular circumstance. Instead, Meta-ethics is focused on questions regarding how ethical study at both normative and applied levels works. Some typical meta-ethical questions are: - When we say something is morally good, what do we mean? - If the claim that euthanasia is morally wrong is true, what makes it true? - If moral claims are sometimes true, what methods do we use to access these moral truths? A. **Semantic Cognivitism** Semantic Cognitivism suggests that when we make moral claims of the form murder is wrong or helping others is right our claims can be true or false (what philosophers call truth-apt). According to the semantic cognitivist, what makes our moral statements true or false is whether or not they accurately pick out, or refer to, specifically moral aspects of the world. Thus, the semantic cognitivist views our moral language as essentially descriptive in nature; we try to describe genuinely moral features of the world and our moral claims are true when our descriptions are accurate and false when they are inaccurate. This position really is as simple as it sounds, even though it is by no means uncontroversial. Consider a semantic cognitivist about the meaning of statements in a news report. When the reporter says that the defendant stepped into the courthouse and gave his name and his date of birth, then this statement will be truth-apt it will be the kind of statement that can be described as true or false. Whether it is true or false will be determined by the accuracy of this statement as a description of features of the world; if the statement correctly refers to the features of the world identified then it will be true, if it does not then it will be false. The situation is the same for the semantic moral cognitivist, if the utterance murder is wrong really does pick out a moral property of wrongness associated with murder then it will be true and false otherwise. Crucially, keep in mind that Semantic Cognitivism only goes as far as suggesting that moral claims are truth-apt capable of being true or false. Semantic Cognitivism, by itself, does not suggest anything about moral claims ever actually being true. To put it in another way Cognitivism has nothing to do with what actually exists in the world. Instead, it is purely a theory explaining the meaning of moral statements. B. **Psychological Cognivitism** Psychological Cognitivism is the view that when we utter a moral statement we give voice to a belief, rather than any other type of non-belief attitude. So, when I utter the statement Saint George won the Ethiopian Premier League in 2015, I express my belief that this happened. According to the psychological cognitivist, I also express a belief when I make claims such as murder is wrong or helping others is right. Semantic and Psychological Cognitivism will be assumed to go together to form the cognitivist position. This is reasonable because it is most natural to think of a truth-apt utterance as being the expression of a belief, for we assume that a belief is the kind of thing that can be true or false and refers to the world. In ethics then, cognitivists claim that moral statements express truth-apt beliefs that are made true or false according to how accurately they describe the world. Moral language and moral psychology, according to the cognitivist, are not especially different to the language and psychology common to many other disciplines such as science, news journalism or non-fiction history books. C. **Realism** In ethics realists hold that certain moral properties or facts exist and that they exist objectively and independently of the minds or beliefs of individual people. Realists thus believe in the possibility of error believing that murder is wrong does not make murder wrong. What would make murder wrong would be the presence of an actual moral property of wrongness (objective and mind-independent) associated with the act of murder. D. **Anti-Realism** Anti-Realism is simply the denial of Realism. Anti-realists deny the existence of any mind-independent, objective, moral properties. The moral anti-realist is thus akin to the anti-realist about dragons or leprechauns in that they simply deny their existence. Anti-realists tend to be (though need not be) non-cognitivists, a fact that should not be surprising given that non-cognitivists do not believe that our moral utterances aim of truth. 2. **Ethical Decision Making and Moral Judgment** 1. **Lens for Decision Making** Ethical decision making is not solely based on our feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science. So, many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us to answer this critical question. #### The Rights Lens This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights including the rights to make one\'s own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on is widely debated; some argue that non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying duties in particular, the duty to respect others\' rights and dignity. B. **The Justice Lens** Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equals according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment). C. **The Utilitarian Lens** Utilitarianism, a results-based approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, the ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach. #### The Common Good Lens According to the common good approach, life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others especially the vulnerable are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates goods for every individual, the common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a community. E. **The Virtue Lens** A very ancient approach to ethics argues that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?" F. **The Care Ethics Lens** Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection alongside physical health. 2. **Rationalization** Studying ethics involves attempting to find valid reasons for the moral arguments that we make. Most people already have general ideas or what philosophers call intuitions or presumptions about what they think is right or wrong. But a philosophical approach to ethics requires people to think critically about the moral ideas that they hold, to support or refute those ideas with convincing arguments, and to be able to articulate and explain the reasons and assumptions on which those arguments are based. In moral philosophy, an argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons underlying those beliefs or opinions. This means that the real value of discussing and debating ethical questions is not to win the argument or to score points against the other person. It is more important to provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas, and to allow for rational and deeper understanding of the reasons underlying our beliefs, ideas and attitudes. Crucially, this requires careful listening to, analysis of and learning from the arguments that others make. One common fault with many arguments about what is right or wrong and involves what is known as a **rationalisation.** A rationalisation occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational or credible motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives. For example, if a landowner seeks to build a plastic recycling plant and states that this is driven by a desire to create local employment opportunities whereas in fact their true motive is to make a profit then this is a rationalisation. The landowner is not giving their true reasons for wanting to build the plant. If, however, they argue that they want to make a personal profit and create local jobs, then they may be giving two true reasons for their motives. 3. **Types of Reasoning** Three forms of critical reasoning that individuals can use to justify the arguments. Reasoning by analogy explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar, although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman animals as we do to humans? Deductive reasoning applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every person. Inductive reasoning involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it. The fact that there is mounting evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global climate, for example, is used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon emissions. 4. **Testing Moral Arguments** Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives us a reason to support an argument. What kind of reasoning are they using? If they are using a principle to support their argument (deductive reasoning), then what kind of principle is it? Is the principle rational? If they are providing evidence to support their argument (inductive reasoning) then is the evidence reliable? Have any motives that might be behind their arguments been clarified (i.e. are they giving rationalisations, not reasons)? Does the conclusion drawn make sense, given the reasons they have given? All of these questions that we ask about peoples' arguments may seem a little onerous and off-putting. With such rigorous criteria, some people may feel that they don't want to make any argument at all, as they are bound to make mistakes in their reasoning. However, most people already use critical reasoning when they make arguments and question other people's arguments. We have an idea of what we think is right based on our experience (our ethical presumptions), and we explain those ideas to other people based on our feelings (intuitions) and reasons. It is important and useful to develop the ability to test your own arguments and those of others, both to address the dilemmas that occur in our personal lives, our communities and the organisations for which we work. There are three main ways of testing a moral argument. **A. Factual accuracy:** We cannot say that something is wrong or right simply based on how things are. This is reasonable, but it does not mean that ethical discussion should be divorced from fact; the accuracy of the factual content of a discussion is very important. Consider the example of someone who maintains that giving aid to charities working in Africa is wrong because they believes that 90% of the money donated in fact goes to paying wealthy consultants and NGO workers, and only 10% goes to alleviate poverty. If this person were shown that this was factually incorrect, and that in fact 90% of all donations were used to alleviate poverty, then their moral argument would lose its force. **B. Consistency:** Arguments need to be consistent. One can only argue that it is morally wrong to kill one person and yet morally acceptable to kill another, if one can demonstrate that there is a morally relevant difference between the two individuals. For example, the moral argument that debts owed by poorer nations to international lenders should be cancelled. Does this therefore mean that all poor people who owe money to banks should also have their debts cancelled? If you don't think that all individual debts should be cancelled but you do think that poorer countries' debts should be cancelled, then you have to show that there is a moral difference between the two. Otherwise your arguments are inconsistent. **C. Good will**: This one is the most difficult criterion to quantify. While arguments may be factually correct and consistent, they also need to exemplify good will. This involves resorting to our intuitions and emotions, which are notoriously difficult to integrate with rigorous theoretical debate. **CHAPTER THREE: FUNDAMENTALS OF STATE, GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENSHIP** Defining State -------------- The term state has been used to refer to a bewildering range of things: a collection of institutions, a territorial unit, a philosophical idea, an instrument of coercion or oppression, and so on. The classic definition of the state in international law is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State (1933). According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the state has four features: a defined territory, permanent population, an effective government and sovereignty. 1. **A. Population:** Since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes it is the people. No exact number can be given to constitute state a question. The fact is that the states of the world vary in terms of demographic strength. There are states with a population of greater than 1 billion like that of China and India, and with a constituency of few thousand people like Vatican and San Marino. Another question that comes up at this stage is whether the population of a state should be homogenous. Homogeneity is determined by any factor like commonness of religion, or blood, or language or culture and the like. It is good that population of a state is homogeneous, because it makes the task of national integration easy. But it is not must, because most of the states have a population marked by diversity in respect of race, religion, language, culture, etc. All problems of nation building are solved and people of a state, irrespective of their differences, become a nation. It signifies the situation of unity in diversity. In short, it is to be noted that without population there can be no state, it goes without saying that an uninhabited portion of the earth, take in itself, cannot form a state. **B. Defined Territory:** There can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory of a state includes land, water, and airspace; it has maritime jurisdiction extending up to a distance of three miles, though some states contend for a distance of up to 20 miles. The territorial authority of a state also extends to ships on high seas under its flag as well as its embassies and legations/diplomat's residence in foreign lands. As seen in the case of the factor of population, so here it should be emphasized that the size of a state's territory cannot be fixed. There are as large states as China and Russia and as small states of Fiji and Mauritius in respect of their territorial make-up. It is certain that the boundary lines of a state must be well marked out. This can be done either by the geographical make up in the form of division by the seas, rivers, mountains, thick forests, deserts, etc., or it may be done by creating artificial divisions in the form of digging trenches or fixing pointed wire fencing. **C. Government:** Government is said to be the soul of the state. It implements the will of the community. It protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the first condition of a civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government that maintains law and order and makes good life possible. The government is the machinery that terminates the condition of anarchy. It is universally recognized that as long as there are diverse interests in society, some mechanism is needed to bring about and maintain a workable arrangement to keep the people together. The government of a state should be so organized that it enforces law so as to maintain the conditions of peace and security. The form of government may be monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic, democratic, or dictatorial and the like, what really needed is that if there is no government, there is anarchy and the state is at an end. **D. Sovereignty:** Sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of the concept state. It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other associations of human beings. Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited power. Conceptually, the existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is for this reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is resulted with suitable punishment. It is universally accepted that a sovereign state is legally competent to issue any command that is binding on all citizens and their associations. In addition to the essential attributes of the state agreed in the 1933, the contemporary political theorists and the UN considered recognition as the fifth essential attribute of the state. This is because, for a political unit to be accepted as a state with an international personality of its own, it must be recognized as such by a significant portion of the international community. It is to mean that, for a state to be legal actor in the international stage; other actors (such as other states, international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations etc.) must recognize it as a state. 2. **Types (forms) of State** There is profound disagreement about the exact role the state should play, and therefore about the proper balance between the state and civil society. Among the different state forms that have developed are the following: - Minimal states - Developmental states - Social-democratic states - Collectivized states - Totalitarian states - Religious states A. **Minimal States** The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure that individuals enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is rooted in social contract theory, but it nevertheless advances an essentially negative view of the state. From this perspective, the value of the state is that it has the capacity to constrain human behavior and thus to prevent individuals encroaching on the rights and liberties of others. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a framework of peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they think best. First and foremost, the state exists to maintain domestic order. Second, it ensures that contracts or voluntary agreements made between private citizens are enforced, and third it provides protection against external attack. The institutional apparatus of a minimal state is thus limited to a police force, a court system and a military of some kind. Economic, social, cultural, moral and other responsibilities belong to the individual, and are therefore firmly part of civil society. B. **Developmental States** A developmental state is one that intervenes in economic life with the specific purpose of promoting industrial growth and economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a socialist system of planning and control but, rather, to an attempt to construct a partnership between the state and major economic interests, often underpinned by conservative and nationalist priorities. The classic example of a developmental state is Japan. During the Meiji Period (1868--1912), the Japanese state forged a close relationship with the Zaibutsu, the great family-run business empires that dominated the Japanese economy up until World War II. A similar model of developmental intervention has existed in France, where governments of both left and right have tended to recognize the need for economic planning, and the state bureaucracy has seen itself as the custodian of the national interest. In countries such as Austria and, to some extent, Germany, economic development has been achieved through the construction of a partnership state, in which an emphasis is placed on the maintenance of a close relationship between the state and major economic interests, notably big business and organized labor. More recently, economic globalization has fostered the emergence of competition states, examples of which are found amongst the tiger economies of East Asia. Competition states are distinguished by their recognition of the need to strengthen education and training as the principal guaranteeing economic success in a context of intensifying transnational competition. C. **Social Democratic (Welfare) States** Whereas developmental states practice interventionism in order to stimulate economic progress, social-democratic states intervene with a view to bringing about broader social restructuring, usually in accordance with principles such as fairness, equality and social justice. In countries such as Austria and Sweden, state intervention has been guided by both developmental and social democratic priorities. Nevertheless, developmentalism and social democracy do not always go hand-in-hand. The key to understanding the social-democratic state is that there is a shift from a negative view of the state, which sees it as little more than a necessary evil, to a positive view of the state, in which it is seen as a means of enlarging liberty and promoting justice. The social-democratic state is thus the ideal of both modern liberals and democratic socialists. Rather than merely laying down the conditions of orderly existence, the social-democratic state is an active participant; in particular, helping to rectify the imbalances and injustices of a market economy. It therefore tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is seen as the equitable or just distribution of wealth. In practice, this boils down to an attempt to eradicate poverty and reduce social inequality. The twin features of a social democratic state are therefore Keynesianism and social welfare. The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to manage or regulate capitalism with a view to promoting growth and maintaining full employment. Although this may entail an element of planning, the classic Keynesian strategy involves demand management through adjustments in fiscal policy; that is, in the levels of public spending and taxation. The adoption of welfare policies has led to the emergence of so called welfare states, whose responsibilities have extended to the promotion of social well-being am

Moral Education Finalized Draft PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue