ETHICS

ETHICS
WHAT IS ETHICS?...

The term ETHICS is derived from the Greek word ETHOS- which originally
means custom or character. It is a branch of philosophy that studies the
rightness or wrongness of human action. In this particular branch of philosophy it
is concerned with; how do human persons ought to act, and the search for the
definition what is right conduct and a good life.

Albert, Denise & Peterfreund

It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the good through the aid of
reason is the traditional goal of ethicist.

It must be noted however that there is no single absolute definition of

ethics. This is because ethics as a discipline is constantly evolving as a result of
change in socio cultural and political context.

Say for example, in the Greek Tradition- ethics was conceived relating to
the concept of “good life”. Thus, the ethical inquiry during this time was directed
towards discovering the nature of happiness. In fact, Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics- does not only presents a theory of happiness but also provides ways in
which happiness is attained.

Centuries later, a quite different orientation was introduced by the Judeo

Christian Tradition- in this ethical tradition, the ideals of righteousness before God
and the love of God and neighbor not be happy or pleasant life constitutes the
substance of ethics.

In deed if we can make an effort to reconcile these views we are faced

with the difficult tasks of defining the relationship between “doing what is right”
and “being happy”.

Again, it is for these reason that we cannot have and absolute definition
of ethics, the least that we can do is to describe the nature and dynamics of
ethics based on a specific time and context.

It is also important to note that Ethics is not the same as Morality. Although,
many philosophers believe that the two concepts can be used
interchangeably. This is because the former denotes the theory of right action
and greater good while the latter indicate practice that is the rightness or
wrongness of human action.
 In other words, ethics undertakes the systematic study of underlying
principles of morality hence it is interested primarily of a more general problem
and the examination of underlying assumptions and the critical evaluation of
moral principles(see illustration below). Morality on the other hand is prescriptive
in nature it tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us to follow the right way.

ETHICS MORALITY

Theory of right action and greater Practice, rightness or wrongness of

good human action

Sytematic study of underlying Prescriptive

principles of morality = tells us what we ought to do
=exhorts usto follow the right way

“Morality is characterized as an end governed rational enterprise whose

object is to equip people with a body of norms that make for peaceful and
collectively satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together and
interacting in a way that is productive for the realization of the general benefit”.
Terrance McConnell

Example:

A religious leader wants his followers to be good at all times. In this way, a
moralist may want to keep a life the value that she considers worthwhile and to
improve the moral quality of the community where she belongs.

Hence morality at the very least aims to guide one’s action by reason and
gives equal weight to the interest of each individual affected by one’s decision.
Indeed, these gives us a picture of what is really means to be a morally upright
person.

And so we may conclude that: ETHICS is the science of morals

MORALITY-is the practice of ethics.

THREE MAJOR TYPES OF ETHICAL INQUIRY

1. NORMATIVE ETHICS - is prescriptive and evaluative in nature as it seeks to

set norms or standards that regulate right and wrong, or good and band
conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should
acquire, the duties that we should follow are the consequences of our
behavior on others. Hence, normative ethics normally attempts to
develop guidelines or theories that tells us how we ought to behave.
 Example:

Juan De La Cruz’s claim that an act is morally right if it is done for

the sake of duty.

2. META ETHICS - is descriptive and analytical in nature. It is allegedly

constituted at least in part by questions of the meaning of the various
ethical terms and functions of ethical utterances. Thus, Meta Ethics, aims
to understand the nature and dynamics of ethical principles, and the
way we learn and acquire moral beliefs.

In its simplest form, Normative Ethics urges us to DO GOOD ALL

TIMES, Meta Ethics asks the question WHAT IS GOOD?

For sure if a moral philosopher asks, what is good? What is justice?

Why should I be moral? then that moral philosopher is doing Meta Ethics.

3. APPLIED ETHICS - it is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for

the purpose of deciding which ethical or moral actions are appropriate
in a given situation.

For this reason,

CASUISTS- is the adherents of applied ethics, are concerned with

individual moral problems such as: Abortion or even Euthanasia,
and attempt to resolve the conflicting issue that surrounds this
particular moral problems.

DIFFERENT FIELDS OF APPLIED ETHICS...

 BUSINESS ETHICS - deals with ethical behavior in the corporate

world
 BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS - deals with issues and
relating to health, welfare and the responsibility to work with
people and in our environment.
 SOCIAL ETHICS - deals with the principles and guidelines that
regulate corporate welfare within societies.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THREE MAJOR TYPES OF ETHICS CAN BE ILLUSTRATED

WITHIN THE FOLLOWING SITUATION.

“A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded shopping

mall”.
META ETHICS:

The act of the police officer is morally wrong because, according to Meta
Ethics, because, it is always wrong to kill. As this well-known, killing in itself is
intrinsically wrong. However, if the police officer does not shoot the terrorist
many innocent people will die or get injured.

NORMATIVE ETHICS:

Though the act of the police officer may be wrong, it is the right thing to
do in this particular situation, because not doing so will result to the death of so
many people. Hence the action might be morally correct.

APPLIED ETHICS (CASUISTS):

The police officer is just doing his job to fulfill his duty. That is to protect as
many innocent lives as possible.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RULES TO SOCIAL BEINGS...

Clearly ethics and morality necessarily carry the concept of moral

standards or rules with regards to behavior. In fact, for as long as we are living,
we have been following rules. But why there are so many rules?

The truth is, there are many people don’t like following the rules because
they represent some kind of restrictions. However, in reality, life can’t be
replaced in order without the rules. Without rules regulations as we know them,
modern civilization, would definitely plunge itself into chaos.

Rules tell us what is or is not allowed in a particular context or situation. In

many ways, rules serve as a foundation for any healthy society.

For example, if everyone could simply do what they desire, do you think
that much of desire would take place? Is it an ideal concept of living? A society
without rules would be downright unruly.

Rules benefits social being in various manners:

 Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior- rules build boundaries

that takes limits on behavior. It is usually coupled with means to impose
consequences on those who violate them. One of the reasons people follow
accepted rules is to avoid negative consequences.
 Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom- rules form
framework for society. Nations are generally nations of laws and the
governing principles are articulated in what we called constitution.
Constitution provides each person guaranteed rights and freedom, but this
rights and freedom is not absolute. There are rules on divisions of power and
checks and balances in order to safeguard individual liberty.

 Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings- rules are needed in
order to keep the strong from dominating the weak, which is to prevent
exploitation and domination. In effect, rules generate a stable system that
provides justice, in which even the richest and most powerful have limitations
on what they can do. The principle is that no one is above the rules or law,
that all is equal under the rules. If they transgresses rules such as laws and
ordinances and take advantage of people, there are consequences both
socially and criminally.

 Rules are essential for a healthy economic system- without rules regulating
business, power would centralize around monopolies and threaten the
strength and competitiveness of the system. Rules are essential to ensure
product safety, employee’s safety and product quality.

In short, society could not soundly function without rules and regulations.
Rules are necessary to protect the greater good. Even the freest societies ought
to have rules in order to avoid exploitation and tyranny while upholding the
common welfare.

MORAL STANDARDS VS NON MORAL STANDARDS...

Today we will talk about an important topic in Ethics that is about Moral
Standards versus Non Moral ones.

WHY THE NEED TO DISTINGUISH MORAL STANDARDS VERSUS NON MORAL ONES.

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs.

And, that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For
this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t.

Let us consider the wearing of a hijab, for sure in traditional Muslim

communities, the wearing hijab is the most appropriate act that women have to
do in terms of dressing. In fact for some Muslims showing some parts of the
woman’s bodies such as the face and legs is shameful, However, in some parts
of the world, especially in western societies most people don’t mind if women
barely covered their bodies. As a matter of fact, the how would canon of
beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress.
 The point here is that, people in the west may have pitied Muslim women
wearing hijab while some Muslim women who dressed up daringly despicable.
And so, these clearly shows that different cultures have different moral
standards- what is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste in one
culture may be a matter of significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that, one culture may impose its own culture
standards to others which may result in a clash of cultural values and beliefs. If
these happens as we may already know violence and crimes may ensue such
as religious violence and others.

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THIS CULTURAL PROBLEM?...

This is where people have to understand the difference between moral

standards and non-moral standards comes in. This issue may be too obvious and
insignificant for some people, but understanding the difference between the
two may have far reaching implications. For one, once we have distinguished
moral standards from non-moral standards, of course through the aid of theories
in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide
our actions.

Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral,
we will be able to avoid of running the risks of falling into the pit of cultural
reductionism and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standards on
others.

The point here is that, if such standard is non-moral, then we don’t have
the right to impose them on others, but if the standards are moral ones such as
not killing or harming people then we have the right to force others to act
accordingly. In this way we may be able to find a common moral ground such
as agreeing not to steal, not to cheat, lie, kill, deceive and harm our fellow
human being.

WHAT ARE MORAL STANDARDS AND HOW DO THEY DIFFER

FROM NON- MORAL ONES...

MORAL STANDARDS- are norms that individual or groups have about the
kinds of actions believed to be morally right or
wrong, as well as the values placed on what we
believed to be morally good or morally bad.
 - normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare
and well-being of humans as well as animals and
the environment.

- It therefore prescribe what humans ought to do in

terms of rights and obligations

- It is the sum of norms and values. In other words,

norms + values=moral standards.

NORMS- understood as general rules about actions and behaviors.

Example: we may say, we are always say we are in
obligation to fulfill our promises, or it is always believe that
killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.

VALUES- understood as enduring beliefs or statement about what is

good and desirable or not. Example: we may say, helping
the poor is good or cheating during exams is bad.
 MORAL DILEMMAS

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and
dynamics of moral dilemmas.

A DILEMMA is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or

more conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key
here is that the person has choices to make that will all have results she does not
want. For example, a town mayor faces a dilemma about how to protect and
preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for
economic development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not

forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a
dilemma. The least that we can say is that that person is just experiencing a
problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that
person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are
called ethical or moral dilemmas.

MORAL DILEMMAS, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called
“moral agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner .
Consider the following example:

Maria is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely
wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Maria is having an ectopic pregnancy.
As is well known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs
outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in
ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this
happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother.
Thus, if Maria continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that
she will die. According to experts, the best way to save Maria’s life is to abort the
fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then
Maria, as well as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Maria is faced with two conflicting
options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the
same time jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but
endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Maria is faced with a huge moral
dilemma.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for
situations to be considered moral dilemmas.
First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision
about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the
best option and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Maria
may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action.

Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as

already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to
choose from for moral dilemmas to occur.

And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are
always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect
solution to the problem.

And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the
moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is
bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do
something which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the
possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas...

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are
categorized into the following: 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-
imposed and world-imposed dilemmas, 3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition
dilemmas, and 4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

EPISTEMIC MORAL DILEMMAS involve situations wherein two or more moral

requirements conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows
which of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In
other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or
wrong. For instance, I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early,
but on my way home I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to the
hospital. Where does my actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there are
conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want
a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is an important purpose being served by my
getting home early? How serious is the condition of the sick old man? Indeed, I
could hardly decide which option is morally right in this situation. However, one
option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of the
situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas.

ONTOLOGICAL MORAL DILEMMAS, on the other hand, involve situations wherein

two or more moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these
conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the
moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other.
The point is that neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other;
hence, the moral agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral
requirements. For instance, a military doctor is attending to the needs of the
wounded soldiers in the middle of the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently
need a blood transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is available at the
moment. To whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion? For sure,
we could not tell whether administering a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more
moral than administering a blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

A SELF-IMPOSED MORAL DILEMMA is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings.

For example, David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the
campaign period, he promised the indigenous peoples in his community to
protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the same time, he seeks
financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the
elections, yet he is faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the
indigenous peoples and at the same time allows the mining corporation to
destroy their forest. Indeed, through his own actions, David created a situation in
which it is impossible for him to be discharged from both obligations.

A WORLD-IMPOSED MORAL DILEMMA, on the other hand, means that certain

events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. William
Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie Zawistowska has
been asked to choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the
gas chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand, will grant a
dispensation to only one of Sophie’s children. If she does not choose which one
should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their death. Sophie chooses her
daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the Children’s
Camp.”

OBLIGATION DILEMMAS are situations in which more than one feasible action is
obligatory, while PROHIBITION DILEMMAS involve cases in which all feasible
actions are forbidden. The famous “Sartre’s Student” is a classic example. It
reads:

The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of

prohibition dilemmas.
Finally, in SINGLE AGENT DILEMMA, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do
A, ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In
other words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more equally the
same moral options but she cannot choose both. For instance, a medical
doctor found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor may
experience tension between the legal requirement to report the case and the
desire to respect confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics
acknowledges our obligation to follow legal requirements and to intervene to
protect the vulnerable.

In MULTI-PERSON DILEMMA, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one
agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each
agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2
to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch
as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that
is, person X chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A
and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs in situations that
involve several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is
expected to come up with consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. A
family may be torn between choosing to terminate or prolong the life of a family
member. An organization may have to choose between complying with the
wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying
them below the required minimum wage. The multi-person dilemma requires
more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the persons involved
reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to do
what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the
decision ought to be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand , the
decision must also prevent the organization from breaking apart”.