Ethics Introduction and Utilitarianism

1. What is Ethics?

What separates humans from animals?

Intelligence? Consciousness? Thought? Morality? – Moral decision making.

Humans think before making decisions and this is undeniably true when these
decisions incorporate ethical or moral thinking. Depending upon our decisions and
actions humans can feel guilt or satisfaction depending on how we feel about the
certain action – whether it is right or wrong.

So what is Ethics?

With these moral and ethical decisions there is much debate amongst all of humanity
as to what is right or wrong; we disagree passionately with each other over how we
should live. Therefore, Ethics explores how humans decide what is right and wrong.
It examines the ways in which different thinkers approach moral decision making and
have tried to define what it takes to be a good person.

i. Definitions

Ethics: 1. A system of moral principles, values or beliefs.

2. The branch of philosophy that deals with values of human
conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain
actions and to the value (good or bad) of their motives and/or
consequences/outcomes.

Ethic: The body of moral principles, values or beliefs (or principle, value or belief)
governing a distinct entity e.g. an individual, a group or nation;
the principle by which people live.

Morality: 1. Conformity to the rules of right conduct.

2. A doctrine or system of morals; a system of ideas of right
and wrong conduct.

Hedonism: The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good;

devotion to pleasure as a way of life.

Utilitarianism: The doctrine that, conduct should be directed towards creating

the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Ethical Theory: Covers religious and philosophical systems for making moral
decisions/statements as well as the analysis of them.

Practical Ethics: Focuses discussion on specific examples or dilemmas involved

(Applied) with moral decision making, such as abortion and euthanasia.
Normative Ethics: Establishes how people ought to act, how moral choices should
be made and how the rules apply.

ii. Common ethical questions

If I do a good thing for a bad reason, does it matter?

Is it sometimes right to do a bad thing for a good outcome?
Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few or the one?
Is what’s wrong for you necessarily wrong for me?
Does the rightness or wrongness of an action vary according to the situation?
Are we free to make moral choices? - even if beyond political law?
Is being moral about following rules?
Should we use our heads or our hearts when deciding what’s right?
Can we have morals without religion?
Should I help my father before I help a stranger?
Is ethics a special kind of knowledge or are moral views just personal feelings?
Does the environment have any value beyond usefulness to human life?
Is killing an unborn human as immoral as killing a born human being?
Should people who want to die be allowed to die? - or even helped to die?
Do animals have rights?

At first glance of all these questions you may believe definitively/out rightly in your
first conviction – but in Ethics you must be prepared to closely assess your
presumptions and or assumptions; as we will see in Ethics nothing is ever ‘black or
white.’

2. What is Ethics? Continued

The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethikos, meaning ‘character’, but is
commonly translated as ‘custom’ or ‘usage’. Essentially ethics refers to the customary
way to behave in society. The term morality comes from the Latin word mortalis, and
is concerned with which actions are right and which are wrong. Today the two terms
are often used interchangeably but the subtle distinction is that ethics is more
concerned with what the rules themselves are, whereas morality is how well one
conforms to those certain rules – the ethic is the rule and morality is obedience to that
rule. BUT that does not mean a morally good person simply adheres to a certain
ethical law – what if the individual deems the ethical law to be immoral in the first
place? Then concordance with such an ethical principle cannot surely be morally
right!

One cannot even really break it down to personal ethics as a justification for personal
morality as in the eyes of another individual the original ethic may be impossible to
morally justify; Ethics is highly complex and perhaps even more contentious – can
any ethical principle or action be 100% morally good or bad?

i. 3 ways of doing ethics

• the normative approach

• the descriptive approach
 • metaethics

Normative ethics was prevalent until the end of the 19th century. It begins by asking
what is good and what is bad, and what behaviour is good/right or bad/wrong. These
decisions may be dictated by an established order within a society or culture, e.g. a
particular religious group, or they may stem from more philosophical or ideological
thinking.

Descriptive ethics looks at how different people and societies have answered moral
questions. It is more a form of sociology or moral anthropology than it is a
philosophy.

Metaethics (philosophical ethics) is very popular today. It questions the very

concepts and definitions of right and wrong or good and bad; it explores the meaning
and function of moral language. It is more concerned with establishing a framework
for moral legislation. See theories such as Definism/Ethical Naturalism;
Intuitionism/Non-Naturalism; Emotivism/Non-Cognitivism.

These are the 3 main components of Ethics as academic study. How do they
connect?

Essentially normative ethics seeks to establish correct moral conduct by means of

descriptive ethics or other forms of analysis combined with philosophical and
ideological consideration of particular moral instances. Metaethics operates slightly
distinct to the other two and attempts to establish how we define good and bad or right
or wrong. Can morality be discussed or is it an unequivocally established law, like
mathematics? –is Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection the means by which we should
measure our moral practice? Other issues involved with metaethics could include
perception and reality as it relates to how we experience pain and such like: a standard
philosophical question surrounding experience is: with an infinite number of events,
which we cannot all experience, how can we definitively claim ‘x’? Meaning in
context, we cannot experience or witness every instance of a stabbing, so we cannot
empirically confirm that every experience of a stabbing causes pain; perhaps in some
situations the experience of being stabbed brings about an absolute state of euphoria.

Examples:
3. Normative Ethics

2 main ethical systems within normative ethics.

i. Telelogical ethics is concerned with the ends or consequences (telos is the

Greek word for ‘end’). Telelogical or consequentialist theories place more
emphasis upon the end result of an action, than the action or process itself:
a teleological theory maintains that the rightness or wrongness of an action
is determined by the outcome – the end justifies the means. If an action
causes happiness then it is deemed good; if it causes pain or anguish then it
is bad – the action itself is neither good nor bad on its own but only good
or bad depending on the end result.

With teleological thinking stealing or lying can be justified if it produces a

positive result. For example if stealing food results in feeding a starving
infant, or if a lie conceals a secret from a spy.

Two teleological theories we will address are Utilitarianism and Situation

Ethics.

Simple problems for teleological ethics: how can we be sure on a result of

an action? Do ends justify all means? Are there not situations or actions
which can never be morally justified?

ii. Deontological ethics concentrates on ethical theories that cannot be

broken. They are concerned with the action itself regardless of the result.
Deontological ethics are concerned with the action itself ad regards it as
the defining feature in a given moral decision. For deontological ethics
actions are either intrinsically good or bad because of absolute laws. These
laws can stem from religion or a perceived moral obligation. Deontologists
are less open to moral debate as they regard actions as intrinsically or
definitely right/wrong or good/bad.

Discussion – consider torture from both the teleological and deontological ways of
thinking.