17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis
1.ETHICSASAPHILOSOPHICALDISCIPLINE
A characteristic human behavior is to value other entities, persons, animals, actions,
experiences, and even ideas. Through this behavior arise personal values, familial values,
cultural values, intellectual values, religious values, aesthetic values, architectural values,
gastronomic values-the list is endless. Human existence is value-laden.
Ethics studies moral and ethical values.[1] To be more precise, it explores their origins
(where do moral values arise), their nature (what is a moral value), their justification (is it
possible to determine that some moral values are better or worse than other moral
values) and their application (what ought one to do).
What distinguishes ethics and other disciplines, such as religion or the social sciences,
that might also examine morals or moral codes is that, as a philosophical discipline,
ethics relies upon the same analytic procedures as other philosophical disciplines. Where
religion relies upon scriptural authorities and the social sciences upon description and
observation, ethics questions, probes, argues, analyzes and evaluates.
As with most philosophical issues and problems, however, there are no universal
solutions (i.e., solutions that have universal acceptance) to the questions that moral and
ethical issues pose, thus ethics and ethical analysis encompasses numerous ideas,
strategies and theories.
As a philosophical discipline, ethics is divisible into theoretical and practical ethics.
Theoretical ethics focuses on questions about ethical values' origins, justification and
evaluation and is divisible into metaethics and normative ethics, whereas practical ethics
focuses on their application to specific issues.
2. METAETHICS
Metaethics attempts to determine (1) what moral concepts and phrases mean and (2)
ethical statements' truth conditions, in particular, whether these statements can be a
given a non-moral or logical justification. Metaethics then focuses on and analyzes moral
language. Common metaethical questions include:
1. What does 'good' mean?
2. What is a 'moral obligation'?
3. Is the statement 'Never lie' justifiable?
Since the focus in metaethics is on language and under what conditions ethical
statements can be true or false, metaethical theories propose no claims about what
particular actions are good, right or moral. Metaethics provides no practical guidance in
moral or ethical matters. It is possible to categorize metaethical theories through their
general responses to the questions 'What are moral concepts and about?' and 'Are moral
statements justifiable?' Cognitivist theories are metaethical theories which argue that
ethical terms and statements are informative and rest upon certain factual claims about
the universe or human nature. As an illustration consider the claim that what is moral is
whatever produces happiness. In this case the metaethical definition-'x is moral means that
http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

1/7

17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

x produces happiness'-relies upon human experience to provide information about what

produces happiness. Non-Cognitivist theories are metaethical theories that argue against
the claim that ethical terms are informative and rest to certain facts about the universe or
human nature, i.e., ethical terms are thought to be non-descriptive and to express little
more than personal attitudes, endorsement, or commendation. As an illustration consider
the claim that all that 'moral' indicates is personal approval. In this case the metaethical
definition-'x is moral means I commend x'-relies upon no factual or informative claim, rather
it relies upon one's personal inclination.
3. NORMATIVE ETHICS
Normative ethics focuses on actual ethical conduct and the moral principles that underlie
it, i.e., while the metaethicist wants to determine what moral concepts mean and whether
moral statements are justifiable, the normative ethicist wants to formulate legitimate
moral principles and then use these principles in specific situations to determine which
actions are moral and immoral. The ultimate purpose then is to devise a ethical code that
provides reasonable and reliable guidelines to assess moral situations and determine
correct moral behavior. To this end most normative ethical theories appeal to moral
principles that are universal (i.e., applicable to all human beings) and, more-or-less, absolute
(i.e., applicable in all situations).
The questions that normative ethical theories consider include:
1. Is it ever moral to lie?
2. Are there absolute moral obligations?
3. Are promises moral duties?
The principal divisions within normative ethics are teleological ethical theories,
deontological ethical theories, and relativistic ethical theories. Teleological theories base their
moral evaluations and principles upon (the actual or possible) consequences that actions
produce, while deontological theories focus on moral duties and the intentions that
motivate an action in their moral evaluations and principles. Relativistic theories
represent more radical positions that argue that there are no universal or absolute moral
principles.
4. ETHICAL ANALYSIS
As a philosophical discipline whose purpose is to explore and explicate moral and ethical
values, ethics is a critical enterprise. To realize this critical purpose, ethics (whether
metaethics or normative ethics) relies upon logical analysis and argumentation.
NORMATIVE STATEMENTS
Normative ethical arguments, i.e., arguments that involve moral or ethical claims,
provide a unique dimension, as well as pose unique problems, to philosophical analysis.
What distinguishes logical arguments, in general, and ethical arguments, in particular, is
that (in addition to definitions and factual statements) some premises, as well as the
conclusion, in an ethical argument will represent normative claims.
While definitions function to determine a term's or phrase's usage and factual premises
http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

2/7

17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

represent descriptive empirical claims, i.e., describe some actual situation, normative claims
represent prescriptive moral judgments, i.e., such claims argue that some situation ought
to be the case rather than that it is the case. Normative claims then include: 'Spousal abuse
is immoral', 'One ought to keep promises', and 'Never lie'.
While the differences between definitions and either normative statements and factual
statements are obvious, the difference between normative statements and factual
statements is perhaps more problematic. To illustrate the difference consider the
statements:
1. The Parthenon is in Athens.
2. Spousal abuse is immoral.
Statement (1) is a factual statement that describes a particular architectural edifice's
geographical location. Statement (2) is a normative statement that claims that a certain
behavior is immoral. Were this all that (2) alleges, the claim that there are dramatic
differences between (1) and (2) might seem questionable. What distinguishes (2) is what
it implies, i.e., in addition to the assertion that spousal abuse is immoral, (2) also implies
that one ought never engage in that behavior-that is, in the final analysis, what it means
to claim that an action is immoral. Thus (1) describes what is the case and (2) prescribes
what ought to be case.
The difference ought to be quite obvious, normative statements express value (or
evaluative) judgments, i.e., judge certain actions or behaviors to have value (in this case
negative value). There are no analogous judgments in factual statements.
Since there other values than ethical values, there can also be normative statements
other than ethical normative statements. The statement, 'Beethoven's piano sonatas are
exquisite', represents a normative statement and so expresses a value judgment. The value
judgment here though is aesthetic, rather than moral. Nevertheless, there is still the
implication that others ought also to consider Beethoven's piano sonatas to be exquisite.
What distinguishes non-ethical and ethical normative statements then, is that in ethical
normative statements the value judgments concern moral behavior.
NORMATIVE ETHICAL ARGUMENTS
An ethical argument then will combine assumptions, definitions, factual statements and
normative claims in the attempt to demonstrate that some other normative claim is true.
To be more precise, most moral arguments will have this general structure:
1. General Moral Principle.
2. Factual claim(s), Definitions.
3. Particular Moral Judgment.[2]
The general moral principle and the particular moral judgment(s) represent the
normative claims, since each will attempt to either prescribe or proscribe certain actions
or behavior. The difference between a general moral principle and a particular moral
judgment is their relative scope. As the name suggests a general moral principle is
applicable in most (perhaps all) moral situations, while a particular moral judgment
applies to the specific circumstances that are in question in the argument. To illustrate
this structure then consider the argument:
1. It is immoral to act with the direct intention to kill an innocent human being.
http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

3/7

17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

2. Active euthanasia involves the direct intention to kill an innocent human being.
3. Thus, active euthanasia is immoral.
In this argument sentence (1) represents a general moral principle that proscribes all
behavior that involves the direct intention to kill an innocent human being, while
sentence (2) represents a definition, since it specifies what active euthanasia entails. On
the assumption that the propositions which sentences (1) and (2) express are true, the
argument concludes that the proposition that sentence (3) expresses is also true, where
(3) represents a particular moral judgment that proscribes a particular action-active
euthanasia.
With ethical arguments the evaluation procedure has the same possible outcomes as
with other logical arguments (the arguments can be either valid and sound, valid and
unsound or invalid), nevertheless the procedure involves additional considerations. To
evaluate moral arguments one must determine:
1. Whether the argument valid?
2. Which premises represent definitions or factual statements and which represent
normative statements.
3. Whether the factual statements are true?
4. What reasons there are to accept or believe the normative claims?
While this procedure builds on the same concepts one uses to evaluate non-ethical
logical arguments, it also presents some unique problems.
Despite the common inclination to believe otherwise, even factual statements can be
problematic. There are, to be sure, procedures to determine whether a factual statement
is true, nevertheless it is still possible to question factual claims. As it happens some
factual claims are easier to substantiate than others. Consider the claim that capital
punishment deters additional murders. This is a paradigmatic empirical claim, since all
one needs to do, it seems, is collect the evidence and determine whether it is true or
false. The problem is that the 'evidence' is open to interpretation and it is the
interpretation that determines whether the claim is seen to be true or false.
While factual claims can pose difficulties, the real problem with moral arguments lies in
the normative claims, since it is an open philosophical question whether normative
claims are themselves even susceptible to either logical or empirical demonstration. This
is a serious obstacle since, unless it is possible to 'prove' normative claims, it will be
impossible to have sound ethical arguments. Consider the statement:
It is immoral to murder.
Is this statement true? There is little doubt that most ethical theories assume its
truth. Nevertheless, what possible rational argument or empirical consideration
could demonstrate that it is true? The problem is that most normative ethical
principles have their origins in traditional religious or cultural standards rather than
in reason or experience.
While there are some ethical theorists who believe that normative claims are
demonstrable (either through experience or reason), other ethical theorists (and
most all logicians) argue that it is impossible to prove that normative statements are
true and so consider ethical arguments to be incomplete. Nevertheless, even while
incomplete, it is still possible (and important) to evaluate ethical arguments. Ethical
http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

4/7

17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

arguments can, and do, incorporate questionable assumptions, definitions,

empirical observations and normative claims.
METAETHICAL ARGUMENTS
Since metaethical arguments focus on definitions and language, rather than on
actions and behavior, metaethical analysis relies upon the same logical techniques
that underlies all philosophical analysis. Metaethical analysis raises no special
philosophical or logical problems.
5. METAETHICAL AND NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIES: A
CLASSIFICATION[3]
METAETHICAL THEORIES[3]
Cognitivist Theories:
Cognitivist metaethical theories which argue that ethical terms and statements are informative and
describe certain facts about the universe or human nature. Thus moral statements communicate
knowledge that is either true or false.
1. Supernaturalism: The facts that underlie ethical statements are metaphysical facts, e.g., 'x is good'
means 'God wills x'.
2. Naturalism: Moral statements are about empirical facts, e.g., 'x is good' means 'someone approves
x'.
a. Subjectivism: Moral statements are about conflicts in interest, e.g., 'x is good' means that 'x
is in someone's favorable interest'.
b. Instrumentalism: Moral statements are about the satisfaction of human interests, e.g., 'x is
good' means 'x is a means to a desirable end'
3. Non-Naturalism: The facts that underlie ethical statements are moral facts, e.g., 'x is good' means
that 'x has the objective moral (and nonempirical) characteristic - goodness'.
4. Relativism: Moral principles are relative to situations, individuals or cultures. Thus moral
statements are about what each individual or culture believes to be moral, e.g., 'x is good' means
'some individual (or culture) believes that x is good'.
Non-Cognitivist Theories:
Non-cognitivist metaethical theories argue that ethical terms are non-descriptive, i.e., fail to provide
information about either the universe or human nature. Thus moral statements communicate no real
knowledge and so are neither true or false.
1. Emotivism: Moral statements express personal attitudes, e.g., 'x is good' means 'Yes!'.
2. Imperativism: Moral statements are meant to influence attitudes, e.g., 'x is good' means 'I agree
with x, so do likewise'.
3. Prescriptivism: Moral statements are a guide to behavior, e.g., 'x is good' means 'I commend x'.
4. Good Reasons Theories: Moral statements have to do with facts that are relevant to moral
evaluation, e.g., 'x is good' means 'There are good reasons to approve x, i.e., good reasons to believe that x
promotes human welfare'.

NORMATIVE THEORIES[4]
http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

5/7

17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

Teological Theories:
Ethical theories that determine an act's moral correctness in relation to some end or purpose that is
seen as desirable or good.
1. Consequentialist Theories: Teological theories in which an act's consequences are the sole factors
that determine the act's moral correctness.
a. Utilitarianism: The doctrine that an act's moral correctness depends upon whether the
consequences produce a more good than evil, i.e., an act is right when it brings about
more good than evil in relation to the other possible actions. The greater the good that
results and the more individuals it affects, the better the action. What distinguishes the
various utilitarian theories is the definition given the idea 'good'. Ideal utilitarianism
argues that 'good' is indefinable. Eudiamonistic utilitarianism defines 'good' as happiness.
Hedonistic utilitarianism defines 'good' as pleasure. Theological utilitarianism defines
'good' as what God wills or desires.
i. Act Utilitarianism: An act's moral worth depends upon the good or bad
consequences that arise in each individual act judged in itself.
ii. Rule Utilitarianism: An act's moral worth depends upon whether it follows a valid
moral rule. [John Stuart Mill]
b. Egoistic Hedonism: The doctrine that (a) pleasure is the highest good, (b) pleasure is an
intrinsic good, (c) pleasure should be sought and (d) an act's moral worth depends upon
the amount of pleasure it produces.
c. Ethical Egoism: The view that all individuals should promote their own interests and that
one's own happiness is the principal good and all other values depend upon this.
d. Instrumentalism: The doctrine that the good is that which works both to increase personal
satisfaction and to resolve group tensions.
2. Non-consequentialist: Teological theories that consider a moral act's general goal or purpose
rather than the act's actual consequences.
a. Natural Law: The doctrine that the obligations and principles that govern moral and
ethical conduct are derivable through an examination of the universe and human nature.
[John Locke]
Deontological Theories:
Theories in which what determines a moral act's correctness or incorrectness, at least in part, with
reference to formal rules that underlie conduct rather than an action's consequences, and which
argue that some actions in conformance with these rules are in fact moral obligations despite the
possible consequences.
1. Act Deontology: The position that the basic judgments about obligations are all particular ones
like "In this situation I should do such-and-such."
2. Rule Deontology: The view that there are one or more moral rules that determine whether an act
is right or wrong. These rules can be rather concrete ('We ought to tell the truth in all cases') or
more abstract. These rules are valid no matter what the consequences.
a. Christian Ethics: Right consists in obedience to God's will and dictates.
b. Stocism: What is right consists in the conformance to natural law and indifference to the
consequences.
c. Kantian Ethics: Right consists in the rational realization that there are certain duties and
that there is an obligation to fulfill these duties for their own sake. [Immanuel Kant]
Relativism:
Relativism argues that there are no universal moral rules, that all moral rules and principles possess
http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

6/7

17/10/2016

EthicsandEthicalAnalysis

equal value. The usual boundaries are personal (what one person considers moral another might
consider immoral, and neither is more correct than the other) or culrural (what is moral in one
culture might be immoral in another culture, and neither is more correct that the other). These
theories can contain teleological and deontological elements.
1. Existentialism: What determines an act's moral status is the immediate situation. There are no
absolute moral rules or principles, nor is there a certain procedure to resolve moral disputes. In
some sense then all moral principles are correct.
2. Cultural Relativism: Ethical principles are relative to particular cultures, thus there are no
universal moral values

NOTES:
1. While there are perhaps subtle differences, and despite the recent tendencies in some circles to
claim that morals concern one's personal behavior and ethics concerns one's social or
professional behavior, there is no traditional philosophical distinction between morals and
ethics. Thus, I will throughout the course consider the terms to be synonymous.
2. Joan Callahan (editor), Ethical Issues in Professional Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988, page 14.
3. Milton D. Hunnex, Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philo-sophies and Philosophers.
Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986.
4. Milton D. Hunnex, Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philo-sophies and Philosophers.
Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986.

http://www2.onu.edu/~mdixon/handouts/ethical%20analysis.html

7/7