Ethical systems and ways of moral reasoning

The debate over ethical issues arises because of the different methods of
moral reasoning
According to the 1st participant, an ethical egoist, it is what he wants
that count; and whatever is of my best interest, and not whether it violates any
commandment
Participant # 2, a deontologist, agrees with the ethical egoist, in that
people have the right to make private choices for their lives
Participant # 3, a utilitarian affirms that it is the consequence produced
by the actions that determines what is right and wrong. In this case; will active
euthanasia produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number?
Participant # 4, a deontologist, a Roman Catholic, appeals the principle
“You shall not kill” #4 disagrees with # 2.
Participant # 5, the emotivist, teaches that the choices each participant
have made so far was just an expression of personal preference.
Participant # 6, a relativist, who argues that there is no absolute standard
for right and wrong; what is moral depends on each situation
Participant # 7,a virtue theorist, argues that there is more than just
making the right decision; the place of individual’s character cannot be neglected
Ethical Systems
1. Antinomianism (against or without the law)
These are either theoretical or practical atheists.
There are no universal principles. If there is no law then there can be no
moral judgment.
What Corrie Ten Boom did was neither good nor bad; it was the appropriate
thing to do
In this case, decisions must be based on subjective, personal, pragmatic
ground, but not on any moral ground.
Whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are
good, then the lie is right.
Relativism
Relativism is the belief that there is no moral truth that applies to all
people at all times.
Cultural relativism: each person’s culture is the standard by which actions
are to be measured. (when in Rome do as a Roman). Although ethical standard is
from one place to another, people are obligated to follow the norm of the culture
to preserve social order.
Cognitive relativism. In this system, truth is always perspectival; things
are true only relative to something else, and that is one’s culture
B. Behaviorism
This theory is popularized by B. F. Skinner, a psychologist who argues that
what we do is not the result of the decision we make; instead what we do is
determined.
Determinism is the belief that nothing happens either randomly or by choice
What we call choices is actually the result of some previous event: a cause.
Our actions are not “decisions” but predispositions to behave in certain
ways as the result of physical causes
Behavior is controlled by cause and effect, what behaviorist call stimulus
and response.
For Skinner, one’s social environment is very important, educational system,
family structure, government policy, religious group, peer pressures and all other
institutions.
We constantly receive positive reinforcement that mold our behavior.
There is no room for ethics in this system. Moral responsibility is
meaningless
Therefore without human autonomy, ethics dissolves into the study of how
society influences us
Although society influences us as human, let’s note that these influence can
be resisted
There is no room for God in Skinner’s system . His world view understand the
world as a closed system.
Everything that happens is explainable in terms of causes that occurs
within the system
No divine power intervenes in the process. Nothing exist that cannot be
discovered through the scientific method
C. Existentialism
Existentialism is traced back in the 19th century and is assigned to Soren
Kierkegaard.
According to Kierkegaard, there are three spheres of existence:
Aesthetics: it seeks pleasure. It is sensual; it is self-centered; does not
get involved and does not decide. (Jean Paul Sartre)
Ethics: at this level, Kierkegaard followed Kant; it is a duty; a decision
can always be justified rationally. The moral man can always cite the universal
law to justify his behavior
The religious: there exist a sphere of existence that is higher than ethics
or moral; the ethical is suspended. There is a telos, a goal that is higher than
the moral, in relation to which the moral norms are transcended.
Kierkegaard bases his argument on Gen 22 where Abraham received the order to
kill his own son and he obeyed. The Bible says that Abraham was declared righteous
but it was not on the basis of morality.
What he did was immoral; a father must love and protect his son, never kill
him. This is a universal ethical principle
How could Abraham be righteous? He was an exception.; and since it could not
be justified on moral ground, thus there must be a higher sphere; the religious
Kant disagrees with Kierkegaard because he argues that ethical norms admit
no exceptions; for they are universal. There is no excuse to violate a universal
law.
For Kant Gen 22 was misunderstood, because it cannot be taken at false
value.
For Kierkegaard the individual is greater than the universal. How could
Abraham justify what he did? Never on moral grounds. Supposing someone saw him
with a knife in hand and ask him; what are you going to do with a knife?
What could he have said? “I heard the voice of God and I believe it was the
voice of God…” how could explain his actions to his son?
Kierkegaard imagines in his book Fear and Trembling, 67.
“When Isaac again saw Abraham’s face it was changed, his glance was wild,
his form was horror. He seized Isaac by the throat, threw him upon the ground and
said “stupid boy, doest thou then suppose that I am thy father? I am an idolater.
Does thou suppose that this is God’s bidding? No, it is my desire! Then Isaac
trembled and cried out in terror. ‘O God in heaven have compassion upon me. If I
have no father upon the earth, be thou my father’ but Abraham in a low voice said
to himself, ‘O Lord in heaven, I thank Thee. After all it is better for him to
believe that I am a monster rather than he should loose faith in thee. (Elmer
Duncan, Soren Kierkegaard, 67).
D. ETHICAL EGOISM
Ethical egoism is the theory that
the morality of an act is determined by one’s self-interest.
Actions that advance self-interest are moral
and those that do not are not moral,
The ethical egoist simply uses self-interest to make moral decisions, which
does not necessarily mean that the person is narcissistic.
In addition to Participant #1, who made his moral decision about euthanasia
based strictly on his self-interest,
many other contemporary examples illustrate the practice of ethical egoism.
For example, medical doctors frequently make decisions based upon their
potential exposure to medical malpractice suits.
 In many cases, nothing is inherently wrong with the desire to avoid
lawsuits.
Another example is the concern that whistle blowers have of loosing their
jobs and are blacklisted from the industry.
Its Principles
Looking out for others is self-defeating
We know only our own needs and less ability to understand others
Being concerned with the needs of others invade our privacy
People find it demeaning to accept the help of others
It is the only moral system that respect the integrity of the individual
human life
A person has only one life to live
Ethics of altruism does not take seriously the life of the individual; for
it must be sacrified for the good of others
Altruistic ethics does not take seriously the value of human life
Problems
It has no means of settling conflicts of interests without appealing to
other systems
It is an arbitrary ethical system which divides people into two groups
Individual are only capable of acting in their self-interest
The Bible portrays self-interest for the sake of others.
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism derives from utility or usefulness
They will say that an act is good when it brings about the desired result.
Thus act are good when they result in happiness, evil when they result in
unhappiness.
It normally seeks the greatest happiness for the greater number of people
This is a consequentialist system, for ethical truth is found in the
consequence of our actions
Some would argue for quantitative utilitarianism (J. Bentham) (what matters
is how much pleasure we will receive.
Others for qualitative utilitarianism (J. S. Mill) he argues that
quantitative utilitarianism is not sufficient because it fails to recognize that
human have higher and lower desire.
Higher desires are those for the intellect and lower desires are based on
our cultural biological needs and wants
An ethical system build on consequences has some inherent problem
1. Is it really possible to know the result. For the rightness or wrongness of
an action depends on something that is still future. And since the future is
unknowable we are left in the air.
2. There are no standard of judgment other than consequences, and
every consequence occurs after the decision. They do not tell us at what time in
the future we can judge. When will all the consequence be in?
3. how can the results be compared? When we make a decision, one
path is chosen and others not. How do we know how things would have turn out have
made a different choice?
4. Can we know the extend of consequences? What constitute the
greatest happiness for those affected by the decision?
5. what happens to justice and other ethical virtues? Such as
fairness, honesty, respect for life. these are not standards for good and evil;
they are ethically significant only when they contribute to the happiness of the
greater number
6. what about motive? Only the result count in this system.
7. is morality dependant on the success of an action?
Its appeal
1. It is a relatively simple theory to apply
2. It avoids the rigidity of deontology
3. It does not appeal to divine revelation but rather appeal to non moral
criteria (works well with an increasing number of skeptics)
Its problems
1. It can not protect the rights of the minority,
2. it may sometimes justify injustice when the greatest good is served
3. The consequences are difficult to predict and measure
4. What may be of benefit to one person may not be to another
5. One always appeal to principles to arbitrate competing claims about benefits
and harms
6. It lacks criteria to direct distribution of benefits in a group
SITUATIONISM
This is the ethics of love; situation plus love is the basis for decisions.
Joseph Fletcher is the most visible advocate of situation ethics.
It is situated between the two extremes of antinomianism, legalism.
We are obligated to tell the truth only if the situation calls for it
There are four working principles in situation ethics:
Pragmatism (what works or satisfies)
Relativism (there is only one absolute, everything else is relative; words
like never, always are to be avoided)
Positivism (values are discovered by the will, not by reason; a man decides
on his values; he does not deduce them from nature)
Personalism (there are not inherently good things; only persons are
inherently valuables. Things are to be used; persons are to be loved
Something is good if it helps person, and bad if it hurts persons.
Situation ethics is also consequentialist
Problems
What is included in the situation? Eg an unmarried couple might make their
decision Christianly to have sexual intercourse to force a selfish parent who
object their marriage
What is love? Flether does not offer a definition of love
Situation ethics is arbitrarily selective in what it takes from scripture.
There is more in Scripture than Matthew 22:34-40. it is not ethical to use only
scripture that support our theories
Situationism fails to take sin seriously enough. It fails to consider the
effect of sin on our moral capacities
EMOTIVISM
Emotivism is a theory about meta-ethics; that is, the language of morality
The emotivist holds that moral language simply expresses a person’s emotion
about the subject
David Hume, one of the founder, holds that morality is a matter of sentiment
rather than fact
VIRTUE THEORY
Virtue theory holds that morality is more than simply doing the right thing
The emphasis is on the moral agent and not the action
Virtue theory is an ethics of character and not of duty
Act-oriented systems do not adequately produce moral people, not to mention
spiritually mature people
It would seem that some components of virtue theory is needed to supplement
acts oriented systems
In favor of virtue theory versus Act-oriented Ethics
Shortcomings of acts oriented ethics
They reduced ethics to solving moral dilemmas and difficult cases that most
people encounter infrequently
Moral duties involve attitudes as well as actions
Act-oriented actions provide little motivation for doing the right thing
It can become legalistic and encourage people to hide behind the façade of
morality
It emphasized individual autonomy or the ability of people to arrive at
their moral duties by reason or revelation
 Virtue theory on its own
It develops in three stages
One must develop some conceptions of the ideal person but for the Christian,
this first stage is defined by the purpose of a person who is to glorify God by
becoming more like Christ
Second the virtue theorist develops a list of virtue necessary for achieving
the person’s proper purpose as outlined in the first stage
Third, people need to be shown how they can develop these virtues either by
divine grace, training, disciplines, education or a combination of these.
According to Aristotle, virtues are developed by exposure to virtuous
people, namely watching and imitating them
But in Christianity, the emphasis is on imitating Christ
Problems
It fails to give guidance for resolving moral dilemmas
There is no clear direction provided by a rule-based system
Since virtue theorists rely on the emulation of ideal individuals in order
to develop virtue
And since we have no way of evaluating or observing one’s character apart
from individual’s action,
Some emphasis on individual action is essential in order to recognize a
virtuous person
Virtue ethics seems to presuppose that you will simply know that a person is
virtuous when you meet them
They cannot make the case when good people do harmful actions
There is no way of recognizing when good people have gone bad since the
character is emphasized over actions
VIRTUE THEORY IN RELATION TO PRINCIPLES
Virtue without principles are blind; but principles without virtue are
impotent to motivate people to action.
Does virtues derived from principles? (correspondence view)
Or Does virtues complement principles as equal? (Complementary view)
A In this, moral rules obligates people to perform certain actions,
regardless of whether they possess the requisites virtues
This means that principles are primary and virtues are secondary
Virtues then becomes disposition to obey the rules or perform certain
actions
B. People have a moral obligation to be a certain kind of person
Virtues are more than simply dispositions to act in certain ways
Right consists in doing the right thing with the right motive and attitude
Virtues are logically prior to principles in that virtue emerges out of
God’s character
UNQUALIFIED ABSOLUTISM
This view holds that there are many universal norms that are never in
conflict. The conflict are only apparent.
Moral absolutes admit no exceptions. Sin is always avoidable.
There always appears a third alternative. Should we lie in order to save
life? No! never.
For Augustine (430) telling the truth is an absolute, and absolute cannot be
broken. Committing one sin to avoid another is still sin
Kant who was a moral absolutist was the most influential thinker of modern
time
The motivating factor is duty; you do what is your duty regardless of the
consequences. we do things because it is our duty.
For Kant reason alone is the foundation. The rules we follow should be
logically consistent and should never result in self contradiction.
Reason is not the only judge, but also the source of right and wrong
Central to Kant’s thought is the motive. He moves ethical evaluation at the
beginning of the process; instead of putting it at the end.
 Even if we do not reach our goal due to unforeseen consequences we act with
the intention of fulfilling our duty.
Although Kant affirms the existence of God; God has no place in his ethics.
CONFLICTING ABSOLUTISM
Evangelical Christian hold to some form of absolutism.
They claim that there are many moral absolutes
When in conflict chose the lesser of two evils, then confess the sin and ask
for God’s forgiveness
Four basic premises of conflicting absolutism
1. God’s laws are absolute and unbreakable.
2. In a fallen world moral conflicts are unavoidable.
3. If faced with moral conflict, chose the lesser of two evils
4. Forgiveness is available if we confess our sins
GRADED ABSOLUTISM
Graded absolutism holds that there are many ethical norms that are
absolutes, but not all of them have the same intrinsic value.
If they ever come in conflict, the Christian is obligated to decide on
behalf of the command of higher rank, higher hierarchy
The modern leader of graded absolutism is Norman Geisler
There are higher and lower moral laws
Bible texts quoted
Matt 23:23 “the weightier matters of the law”
Matt 5:19 “one of the least of these commandment”
Matt 22:36-40 “this is the first and Great Commandment”
John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this”
1 Cor 13:13 “but the greatest of these is love”
No guilt is imputed for the unavoidable
God does not hold the person responsible for the unavoidable moral
conflicts, provided he keeps the higher law
Some hierarchy of values
Subjects have more value than objects
God have more value than persons
An actual person more value than a potential person
Potential persons have more value than actual things
Many people have more value than few people.
ABORTION
What is abortion?
Abortion is a procedure humanly initiated resulting in the death of a human
being before birth.
It is also defined as any action aimed at the termination of a pregnancy
already established. This is distinguished from contraception, which is intended
to prevent a pregnancy.
There are involuntary abortions;
as we see for example in miscarriages.
Abortions became legal in the USA in 1973. from 1973 to 1993, 28 millions
legal abortions have been performed.
They increased from 898 000 in 1974 to 1 574 000 in 1982.
Each day an average of 4,257 unborn human beings are aborted in the USA
Induced abortion are used in four ways:
Therapeutic: continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the
mother
Eugenic. This occurs when the fetus suffer suffers malformations or generic
abnormality
Criminal; pregnancy is the result of rape or incest
Psycho-social. When the fetus is not accepted for whatever reason
Gender-selective abortions.
With the advance in technology, pregnant women learn the gender of their
unborn children and decide if they want to keep the baby
 Sex test centers are common in some countries
Abortion in the Ancient world
Plato, in the Republic, stated that all ill-conceived embryos should not be
allowed to be born, and if they were born, the parents should dispose of them
Aristotle was of the same opinion, and stated that no deformed child should
be reared. Therefore, in Greece, defective children were exposed (popular mount
Taygetos)
Seneca referred to the drowning of the abnormal children at birth as a
common place as something reasonable
It was customary in Ancient Rome to put the new born baby at the father’s
feet. If he picked the infant up, it meant that he accepted it as his child and as
a member of his family.
If he did not pick the child up, the infant became cast away and was left
beside the
The road, either to be picked up by a stranger or to die Civilization in
Crisis, 59.
Early Judaism was decidedly opposed to abortion. The popular Jewish wisdom
of the Sentences of Psudo- Phocylides [written between 50 BC and AD 50] says that
a woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth
throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.
Many of the books produced by early Christian writers, books which
circulated among the churches with the 27 NT books that eventually became part of
the NT canon clearly expressed and spread their opposition to abortion throughout
the Christian Church. See Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, The Apocalypse of Peter.
Tertullian wrote in the third century: “For us murder is once for all
forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother’s blood is being on
to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is
only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one take away life once born
or destroy it as it comes to birth. Civilization in Crisis, 77
Some of the contributing factors include: Pro choice
Increased permissiveness, women’s right to do with their bodies as they
please (Prostitution is illegal, controlled substances)
If illegal women will endangered themselves in clandestine abortions
Advancement in medical techniques (reduce risk)
Emancipations of women
Excessive demographic growth, society should not force women to raised
serious mentally retarded children or to bring unwanted children into the world
Social injustice—lack of education for all, financial hardship
Is abortion a Crime? Does it have moral implications?
All depends when life begins. It is believed that if abortion could be
performed before life begins then it will not be a crime.
Many primitive societies believe that life does not begin until the child
has received a name or has some other rituals performed for it
Others including humanists believe that life is present in the earliest
union of reproductive cells, but that human life begins at birth
What is the status of the Human embryo?
When does human life begin?
Life begins at conception?
Consider Jer 1:5 “"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before
you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.“
God knows the unborn in the same way He knows an adult
Psalms 139:16 “your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me
were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
This suggests continuity of personal identity Ps 51:5 “sinful from the time
my mother conceived me”
Gen 33:5 “Then Esau looked up and saw the women and children. "Who are these
with you?" he asked. Jacob answered, "They are the children God has graciously
given your servant.“
 In the incarnation, Christ identified with all humans; he came as a babe in
a manger. Was he a potential babe? Christ was a fetus as well.
Unborn share equal right with adult (Gen 4:1, Job 3:3)
REPRODUCTIVE, GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMNAN CLONING
It is seldom considered an anomaly to be childless especially in a culture
that values childbirth as a sign of achievement and greatness
Conversely, there are unwed teens and adult who give birth to children they
don’t really want to raise.
Thus a newly wed couple who are childless may be wondering which of the
reproductive technology available is morally acceptable
Reproductive technology refers to the various medical procedure available to
alleviate infertility
Some of these procedures raise serious moral questions
There is no precedent in the law upon which to rely; so legislators are
looking to ethics to help formulate policies to deal with some of these
complexities before they arise
Does your sense of manhood/womanhood lies in fertility/infertility?
With these new technologies childbearing becomes a reality for infertile
women
1. a woman and her husband who cannot produce a sperm is artificially
inseminated (DI)
2. a man and his wife who cannot produce egg may have the husband sperm
inseminated (Genetic surrogate mother)
3. a couple may rent a womb if the wife cannot carry the child to term
(gestational surrogate mother)
4. a married couple may want to avoid any interruption with employment,
may have her sister carry the child for her
5. a lesbian may get a sperm from a donor and have the embryo implanted in
the uterus
6. a couple who cannot produce egg or sperm. Both couple’s family might
donate egg and sperm and the embryo is transferred to the woman in that couple
7. two homosexuals who want a child may look for an egg donation
8. a woman with menopause may purchase an egg from a donor
Some of the technologies available to infertile couples
Intrauterine insemination
Donor insemination
Egg donation (woman receives hormonal stimulation)
Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT)
In vitro fertilization (IVF)
Surrogate motherhood
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
Are reproductive technologies morally acceptable?
The most outspoken against reproductive technologies is the Roman Catholics
Perhaps the question is: Do you really have to have that child?
Does adoption seems the best option?
In the past decade, genetic technologies have emerged from the realm of
science fiction to everyday reality.
The first human cloning came in 1993.
Some of the most exciting aspects of the new discoveries in Genetics come
when these discoveries can be put to use actually treating diseases rather than
simply detecting them
Gene therapy is being developed for disease such as cystic fibrosis,
coronary artery, various types of cancer
Embryos were cloned originally to help couples make the infertility
treatments less expensive and less demanding to the infertile wife.
Some of the reasons why someone would want to clone embryos include:
Helping to make infertility treatments more efficient and less costly
Providing embryos for research
 Being able to provide a person with exact tissue match should it be
necessary to treat a life threatening disease (as with a bone marrow transplant)
Being able to replace a child who had died prematurely
Offering organ farming in which the cloned person is used a source of
biological spare parts
Making a profit from selling one’s embryos on the open market, in the case
of people like athletes and supermodels
The desire to copy oneself and approach something like immortality
Practical concerns
Cloning will cause the deterioration of gene pool; because it will limit
variety and increase the frequency of genes that are defective.
It could increase the incidence of some genetic disease in a given
population
Cloning could lead in incestuous relationship where genetic disorder could
be expressed in offspring, then enter into the human gene pool.
Errors which produce defective clones are possible.
Do those creature have rights?; in case of divorce who has custody?
Ethical concerns
The process tempered with the natural order that involves playing God
It bypasses the traditional notion of parenthood.
It could encourage surrogate motherhood, single families, gays and lesbians
having children
The goal is admirable but would the means be moral? When clones are
produced, would it not be immoral to use persons to meet the need of other
persons?
There is a need to distinguish the technique from its use
Cloning includes all those processes by which living plants or animals are
replicated by asexual means—methods that do not involve the fusion of egg and
sperm.
Many natural processes are forms of cloning. For example, microorganisms,
like common yeast, reproduce by splitting into two daughter cells that are clones
of the parent cell and each other.
Conclusions
The attitude that suggests that a technology must be used simply because it
can be used is problematic.
Just because science advances, it does not follow that society is obligated
to make every new technology available.
Moral reflection must keep up with scientific progress