presented by:

studies MORAL and ETHICAL values.

where do moral values arise?

what is a moral value?

determination if better or worse

what ought one to do

 questions

probes

analyzes
Scriptural authorities
argues
Upon description and
evaluates
observation
 Focuses on questions
about ethical values’ Focuses on application
origins, justification and to specific issues
evaluation
 Authoritative standards

Patterns or traits taken to be typical in the

behavior of a social group
 According to Alan Thomas, it is the branch of
philosophy that theorizes the content of our
moral judgments, or, as a limiting case, denies
that any such theories are possible

Focuses on actual ethical conduct and the moral

principles that underlie it, meaning the interest in
determining the content of our moral behavior
 Formulation of legitimate moral principles and
then use these principles in specific situations to
determine which actions are moral and immoral

TO DEVISE AN ETHICAL CODE THAT PROVIDES

REASONABLE AND RELIABLE GUIDELINES TO
ASSESS MORAL SITUATIONS AND DETERMINE
CORRECT MORAL BEHAVIOR
 Seek to provide action-guides;
Procedures for answering the Practical Question
“What I ought to do?”
Most normative ethical theories appeal to moral
principles that are:

applicable to all human beings

applicable in all situations

Is it ever moral to lie?

Are there absolute moral obligations?
Are promises moral duties?
Base their moral evaluations and principles upon (the actual
or possible) consequences that actions produce

Focus on moral duties and the intentions that motivate an

action in their moral evaluations and principles

Represent more radical positions which argue that there are

no universal or absolute moral principles
Determine an act’s moral correctness in relation to some
end or purpose that is seen as desirable or good

An act’s consequences are the SOLE factors

that determine the act’s moral correctness

The doctrine that an act’s moral correctness depends upon

whether the consequences produce more GOOD than evil

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.

An act’s moral worth depends upon the good or bad

consequences that arise in each individual act judged in
itself

An act’s moral worth depends upon whether it follows a

valid moral rule
(a) Pleasure is the highest good
(b) Pleasure is an intrinsic good
(c) Pleasure should be sought
(d) Amount of pleasure it produces

All individuals should promote their own interests and that

one’s own happiness is the principal good and all other values
depend upon this

The doctrine that the good is that which works both to increase
personal satisfaction and to resolve group tensions
A moral act’s general goal or purpose than the actual
consequences

Obligations and principles that govern moral and

ethical conduct are derivable through an
examination of the universe and human nature [John
Locke]
Theories in which what determines a moral act’s correctness or
incorrectness with reference to formal rules that underlie conduct
Some actions in conformance with these rules are in fact
MORAL OBLIGATIONS despite possible consequences

Basic judgments about obligations are all particular ones

“In this situation I should do such-and-such”.

The view that there are one or more moral rules that
determine whether an act is right or wrong, and these
rules are VALID NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES
Right consists in obedience to God’s will and dictates

What is right consists in the conformance to natural

law and indifference to the consequences

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
Argues that there are no universal rules; all moral rules and
principles possess equal value

Usual boundaries are:

What one person considers moral,

another might consider immoral, and
neither is more correct than the other

What is moral in one culture might be

immoral in another culture, and neither is
more correct than the other

These theories can contain teleological and deontological

elements.
What determines an act’s moral status is the immediate
situation
No absolute moral rules or principles, nor is there a
certain procedure to resolve moral disputes
In some sense, ALL MORAL PRINCIPLES are correct.

Ethical principles are relative to particular cultures, thus

there are NO UNIVERSAL MORAL VALUES.
 Involve moral or ethical claims, provide a unique
dimension, pose unique problems to philosophical
analysis

What distinguishes LOGICAL ARGUMENTS in

general, and ETHICAL ARGUMENTS in particular (in
addition to definitions and factual statements) is
that some premises, as well as the conclusion…
Definitions function to determine a term’s or phrase’s usage.
Factual premises represent descriptive empirical claims.

However, the difference between normative and factual

statements is perhaps more problematic.

1. The Parthenon is in Athens.

2. Spousal abuse is immoral.
Thus, (1) describes what is the case and (2) prescribes what ought to be the case.

Normative Statements express VALUE (or Evaluative)

JUDGMENTS; there are no analogous judgments in factual
statements.
 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 evaluate moral arguments one must determine:
1. Whether the argument is valid?
2. Which premises represent definitions or factual
statements and which represent normative statements
3. Whether the factual statements are true?
4. What reasons are there to accept or believe the
normative claims?
Joan Callahan, Ethical Issues in Professional
Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988,
page 14.

Milton D. Hunnex, Chronological and Thematic

Charts of Philosophies and Philosophers. Grand
Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986