Basic Concepts in Ethics

A. Facts and Values

Ethics as an academic subject is the study of values as behavioral guides.  It is concerned with
the basic values which lie at the root of moral judgments and decisions. There are several things
to discuss with relation to values. First, we want to make a distinction between matters of fact and
matters of value. These distinctions apply to assertions or statements.

Facts refer to how things are. Facts are related to description and consist in properties or
relations of things in the world. Example, Fact:  Bribery is common in some countries or:  Lying is
dishonest.

Values (of all types) are things which we deem useful worthy, important, desirable, good - to us.
Values play a part in all aspects of our lives. Some are more fundamental and important than
others.

Intrinsic and extrinsic values

A distinction between two types of values. They differ in terms of their level of value. One type is
more basic than the other.

Extrinsic: things valued because of what they bring us are called extrinsic or instrumental values.
Extrinsic values are those valued for the sake of something else. We value money because of
what it will buy us. We value a nice car because it will be nice to drive, make it easier to get
dates, and so on.

Intrinsic: those things we value strictly in themselves, for their own sake. They are valued not as 
means but as ends in themselves. (This phrase will come up again). Some candidates for intrinsic
value: pleasure, happiness, well-being.

Values may be understood to sit along a spectrum moving from most extrinsic at one end to most
intrinsic at the other. Happiness would probably be the most intrinsic value, with others such as
security, prestige, health, close by. Virtues might come next, with honesty, courage, gratitude,
making up a list of things which seem to be both intrinsically and extrinsic ally valuable. On the
extrinsic side would be material items and things like exercise which bring about the other more
intrinsic values.
 

B. The Relation of Values to Morality

Values form the basis of our moral beliefs and underlie our behavior. But how does the relation
work?

Value judgments are determinations made by us about things. Moral valuing: This has to do with
judgments about actions and people in a moral sense.

With regard to the facts above. A common moral judgment would be:
“Lying is wrong”
“People should not bribe.”

Alternately, value judgments may be made about objects in the world. If  you value something,
you will say it is “good”. This judgment relates to the item’s utility, or its usefulness. A good car,
depending on who is making the judgment, is one which sharp-looking, fast, affordable, and aids
one in getting dates. Those features make it good to that person. So we can identify moral and
non-moral values.
 We act according to our values. The formulation of moral rules follows a path. It may be
demonstrated thus:

Values > Principles > Rules

 Values are the basic things held to be important, as described.

 Principles give substance to our beliefs about values. They are general laws as guides to
action. They provide motive force for action.
 Rules are the specific guidelines for action. They stem from principles, which themselves
are formed by values.

Summary of the relation: values give rise to principles which provide the foundation for rules
which enforce those principles.

Outcome: People's actions and judgments will normally be traceable to their values.
Consider:
Value: Honesty
Principle: that which promotes honesty is good.
Rule: Tell the truth! or, negatively, Don't lie!

Practically:
>Act according to this
>Judge truth telling to be right

2. Methods of Moral Knowledge:

There are various ways to get at moral certainty, and some are preferable to others. Recall that
for this course we are trying to get at the most certain, trustworthy, real, true conclusions in
ethics. These conclusions will be those which conform to accepted methods of testing, the type
which we apply very dependably to most aspects of our lives. This is an approach which assumes
that it is possible to attain knowledge about morality. We know a fair bit about how morality works,
and there is no reason to think that the answers of morality are beyond our normal methods of
reasoning.

Subjectively based / non-theoretical (undependable)

Intuition  is the sense of  “just knowing” something with regard to morality by means of a strong
feeling or hunch. We feel the rightness or wrongness of an action or issue. Intuition usually 
strikes one prior to thinking deeply about the issue. We put a lot of faith in it because it has an
emotional aspect.  Intuition is a pre-reflective moral response. People are instantly disgusted or
otherwise moved by some act, and the emotional response provokes them to “feel” the rightness
or wrongness of the issue.

Intuition is suspect, however. It is not simply the case that something is true because we have an
intuition that it is true, and we can often be wrong if we equate strong feeling with truth. The
pattern is “I feel strongly that it is true, so it is true”; in other words, one’s belief becomes the
“truth” But intuition is not foolproof; intuitions may be mistaken.  Intuitive knowledge tends to back
up our pre-existing beliefs.

In the past, for example, people may have had the intuition that it was wrong for women to work
outside the house, pursuing careers. Often, when we consider the issue soberly and rationally,
we find that there are no reasons to accompany our position of the issue, and that our belief is
entirely based on some prior (possibly mistaken) conception of the matter. Nowadays, we would
not think such behavior is wrong, and probably hold that preventing women from pursuing careers
is wrong.
Another sign that intuitive knowledge in itself is undependable has to do with the fact that many
people have differing intuitions on the same issue. For example, some might think that cigarette
producers are seriously immoral, while others think they are entirely morally legitimate. Which
intuition is right?

[Comments: biological aspect: Intuition might be understood as a psychological aspect of the mind, which is related to our moral
capacities. Morality itself can be explained biologically, and intuition, conscience, the tendency to judge ourselves and others, are
aspects of how morality is manifested in us. Intuition might also be a way the mind processes previous experience and reasoning.
We just know something because of prior experience or knowledge we have had with regard to it. ]

Conscience
Conscience is often described as a voice inside one’s head which tells one to do or not do
something. Or it troubles them after the fact. Conscience has a moral character. It varies from
person to person in terms of both content and strength. This can partly be explained with
reference to biology.

Conscience, like intuition, can also be pre-reflective, and it shares some other things with
intuition. It is a feeling which tends to confirm pre-existing views on some matter. Like intuition it is
undependable when it alone is taken as the test of truth. We might think of conscience as a tool
of the moral consciousness. It urges us to do what is considered moral in one’s society. It is very
effective in doing this.

Could one's conscience tell one to do something which is in reality wrong? Yes, it could.
Example: slavery. If someone grew up in a time when slavery was accepted, their consciences
might never bother them. There a lots of other examples: child labour, subjection of women,
unjust penalties for certain crimes. Blacks in the US recently, and even now.

Conscience is also inconsistent. Think of how often we change our minds about moral issues
from one time to another. Plus we have the problem of people disagreeing on the grounds of their
consciences. Smith thinks abortion is immoral, and Jones thinks it is not. The point is, although
judgments of conscience differ, they cannot all be right.

So conscience cannot be a sole guide to morality. It can often be helpful, but we should be
careful about appealing to it apart from reasoning as well.
 
Normative Theories (authority and rational based) :
Recall that normative theories are those which prescribe behavior. They tell people how to act.
Several normative theories have been developed and have a substantial effect on people’s
understanding of morality, and their behavior. These theories vary greatly, both in substance and
method. Some were developed by philosophers, others by theologians and moralists. Although
the theories vary greatly in detail, they also share some similarities:

All normative theories claim to be:

a. true, and,
b. universal, (apply to all people at all times).

They all tell people what to do and what is right and wrong. Some are based on faith or an appeal
to some authority, others on reason, still others on both.

Philosophical ethical theories may be divided into several types: consequentialist, deontological,
contract, virtue. We will focus on the first three in this survey look at ethical theory. Religious
ethics is a mixture of all of them, but leans toward deontology in its earlier interpretations.
 
Religious Morality:
Common morality stems in great part from religion. It can hardly be stressed enough just how
much an effect the dominant religious morality of the culture has on people within the society. In
our country, the dominant religious influence has been Judeo-Christian. Correspondingly, the pre-
dominant moral consciousness has been deeply influenced by those religions (Judaism and
Christianity). Even people who may not practice religion embrace the corresponding moral guides
because they are so deeply entrenched in our collective moral consciousness.

Following religious morality is a traditional and usually unconscious way of doing things. It can
often elicit pre-reflective responses, (as it is designed to do that and lends itself well to the
tendency).

There is some sound moral advice to be gleaned from some religious approaches, and many
religious rules are very sensible, and time has proven them beneficial to us. However, there are
problems about religious ethics when it comes to trying to solve moral debate as we are here in
this course. One problem centres on finding common (universal) moral standards in order to find
moral certainty. Many of us have differing moral and religious views. Many of us have differing
levels of belief in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some of us have different religious views
altogether, and others appeal to no religion at all. So as it stands, there is a lack of agreement on
just what religious moral rules and truth consist in. But we need a way to find moral certainty that
we can all agree on despite our diversity. Not all of us will accept the same religious precepts.

The central concerns about using religion as the sole source of moral guidance can be put like
this:
 
1. religions tend to disagree on specific moral issues: there is no one common set of moral
rules. Different religions preach different views. This is a problem sometimes put in terms
of the “divine command theory”. The upshot is that even though the pronouncements are
supposed to come from God, people differ about what God is actually commanding us to
do.
2. Further, because the commands are divine, they are beyond question. They cannot
reasonably be expected to be tested and conform to normal methods of getting at truth.
But this course is all about examining and questioning the basis of  moral beliefs. We
search for the truth rather than assume it.

So for this course we need a common ground; something we can all agree on.  This is an
approach that puts objectivity first. We need to rely on arguments which do not depend on God's
will or authority. But rather, reasons independent of God and other authority which is faith based. 
We need the most reasonable answers, and this method can still satisfy religious believers.

The approach is this:  come up with the best most universally acceptable reasons for your moral
views, and then, if you are so inclined, back them up with an appeal to religious authority. I ask
only that you do not make that appeal first, because then you are defaulting to a particular moral
view which is not open to appraisal.

Morality, as a normative system, is supposed to provide a uniform rule of conduct for all people.
If this rule varies from person to person, religion to religion and culture to culture, then we have a
large problem. This is what divine command morality leads us into. St. Thomas Aquinas saw this
problem, and that is why he rejected the theory in favour of natural law.

Natural Law. This theory began with Aristotle. He argued that everything has a nature or
essence. Everything, even humans have natural tendencies as our ends. This is a type of
teleology: something with a goal or purpose. Something which is aimed at ultimately. Aristotle
said that even rocks have a natural tendency. They all fall and aim toward the centre of the earth.
Science does the same thing with gravity. Natural Law claims that there is a basis of morality
which can be empirically known. You can see what is the good of everything. Aquinas picked up
on this theory.
According to Aquinas, moral judgments are dictates of reason. To make a correct moral
judgment, one must be rational and obey one's conscience. God is the supremely rational being.
He is responsible for the rational ordering of things. The world operates in accordance with laws
of nature -physical laws, etc. So too do humans have a nature, and should act according to this
nature which is the most rational way to act.

Aquinas argued further, one should follow one's conscience. To do otherwise is to sin (or so the
theory goes). But this brings up problems regarding one's conscience which I mentioned earlier. It
is difficult to figure out just what God would wish us to do, and it is unclear what to do when
people’s religious consciences differ.

Conclusion: morality and religion should be considered independent of each other for this course.

Summary:

 Religion is perhaps the most influential source of our moral beliefs. Our moral
judgements and decisions, and our moral consciousness is largely affected by religion.
 It sometimes gives us very valuable and agreeable guidance (in the sense of conforming
to intuitions, popular opinion, and even more dependable grounds such as reason). So it
is sometimes helpful.
 However, religions tend to differ on some important moral questions, while they all claim
to be true, and they all demand obedience as a matter of faith. Reasoning occurs to a
point, but eventually faith takes over.
 For the purposes of this course (in order to be able to discuss the issues thoroughly) we
need to focus on rational methods of testing for moral truth and coming to moral
decisions. This means that religious appeals are inadequate grounds for moral
judgements for a course like this.
 This establishes a common ground that we can all agree on, at least to some degree. If
you wish to appeal to religious authority, then do it after you have argued from a
reasonable basis. This will strengthen your arguments, and help you persuade others of
your view. If you have a reasoned argument as well as your religious convictions, then it’s
a better argument.

 Consequentialism
Consequentialist means literally "concerned with the consequences or outcomes of moral actions
and decisions. Consequentialists are concerned about how things turn out.  If I am about to make
a moral decision, and I ask myself "well, what will happen if I do this, will the result be good or
bad or what?", then I am acting as a consequentialist.

Example:  If I decide to refrain from razoring a journal article in the library because I know
someone will surely need it sometime, then I am weighing my actions in terms of the outcomes. I
realise that some harm may come about by my actions.

We will be talking about one main example of consequentialist theories in this course.

Utilitarianism (U-ism)
A normative theory originated last century by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. It is an extremely
influential theory. Many people (most of us) make Utilitarian (U-ian) decisions and judgments
every day. It is hard to overstate the importance of this theory for today's society. You will see
Utilitarian arguments at work in many a business deal, or government issue. U-ism tries to boil all
moral rules down to a fundamental rule: maximise happiness. It takes away all reference to God,
or other authorities. For guidance it tries to use a common standard rather than obeying obscure
rules.
 With Uism, each person's good is considered equally, and the amount of this good may vary from
situation to situation. The goal of U-ism is to maximise the good of all people. This is the
“Principle of Utility” (PU), introduced by Bentham. It says that an action is better which produces
the most happiness.

Mill later developed the principle of utility into the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP), which
states that the right action is one that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest amount of people. U-ism often literally calculates happiness in order to determine
morality. It employs math and is used in cost benefit analyses (which we will soon discuss in
detail).

To be more precise: the utilitarian will,

a.  estimate the utility resulting from each person affected by an action and,
b.  select that action which yields a higher overall utility score than any    
      other action.

Example:  You want to build a factory in a small town which is near a native reservation. The
factory will invite lots of investment and create thousands of jobs both for the natives and for the
others in the town. The problem is that the plant will pollute an area of wilderness where natives
have hunted for years. It will cause several of them to lose their traditional livelihoods. U-ism says
go for the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Problems with U-ism:

1. Measuring happiness. Happiness is a somewhat subjective concept. It is difficult to come up with

a universal measure. Think of all the ways it may be defined. This is related to,
2. Interpersonal utility: We may regard things which make us happy as preferences. Perhaps if we
list our preferences in order we can determine their respective utility. However, each of us has slightly
differing orderings of preferences. So when we get involved with interpersonal utility comparisons we run
into a problem.   Experiment: Consider a list of preferences and put them in order. Now compare it with
the lists of others. No doubt we will all have slightly different orderings.

a) Loyalty in relationships
b) privacy
c) a university education
d) peace and quiet
e) a car (an Acura, maybe?)
f) freedom

The question is how do we decide on a standard ordering of these different lists? Perhaps we
could use money, i.e.,  determine what each happiness item is worth in dollars and order it that
way. But then we have a problem with money, because a millionaire could afford to pay $100,000
for a university education, and it would not mean that she values it any more than I do, even
though I can't pay that much.

3. Justice issues: individual and minority rights. Problems emerge when considering individual
rights. The happiness of the majority outweighs    that of the minority. The happiness of the few
may be sacrificed for that of the many. Act Utilitarianism seems to be bound to saying it is right.
Consider the above “dump-site near native land example”.

4.  Another example is the Raskalnikov case. This stems from the Dostoievsky novel Crime and
Punishment, in which a student murders a little old lady (who no one likes), so that he can
support himself through university. He thinks he will become PM and do a great deal of good for
millions of people. U-ism seems to allow this action. Is it wrong, or are we wrong? Imagine the
morality of kidnapping a banker, holding him for ransom, and distributing the money to the poor.

5.  Equal utility problem: this challenges the claim that we should (or can) care about someone
else's utility at the same level as my own. Reflection suggests that we care more about ourselves,
and that there is no solid basis to do otherwise. It does not mean that we are entirely selfish, but it
denies caring equally about all others.

Deontology
Deontology is the name used for  those systems of morality that centre on duty. The right action
is that which conforms to a principle—a duty— that is pre-determined. Such systems are also
called non-consequentialist simply because the moral emphasis is on how the act is done
(following a duty) rather than the outcome.

A common and somewhat useful way of distinguishing between consequentialism and deontology
is to say one focuses on ends, the other on means.  As a point of caution, it should be noted that
no theory is exclusively duty or ends based.  There are elements of both approaches in both
types of theories. What differs is what they aim at, and how they interpret the term duty.

That is, it would be misleading to say that deontology is entirely devoid of considering
consequences, because some thinking about what one wishes to achieve always goes into moral
decision making. The difference is that deontological theories are those which put duty ahead of
consequences. Although, on analysis,  consequences are still important to some extent,
obedience to rules is considered more important than outcomes. The means take priority over the
ends; how things happen are more important than how they turn out. The means conform to rules
and principles. The goodness of the act lies in its conforming to a “good” rule.

With U-ism the slogan is "the ends justify the means".

With Deontology it is “the means justify the ends”.
 

Kant: One extremely important theorist of the deontological camp is Immanuel Kant. He wrote
several very important philosophical books in the 1700's. These are some of the most difficult and
profound readings in philosophy or any subject. His theory is as important as U-ism. He came
from a very strict Prussian background.

Kant thinks it is very important to act on principle. In fact it is the central focus of morality.
Rationally choosing the right action, and acting on a duty is moral. One should act according to
principles which are rationally chosen and followed with strict obedience. Acting consistently is
acting on principle.

In terms of value, deontologists like Kant think that morality is good for its own sake. It is
intrinsically valuable. Happiness is subordinate to morality.

Kant has a system for adopting principles for ourselves, which accord with reason and are to be
followed unflinchingly. To Kant, morally correct principles are those which could be adopted
according to reason. Kant thinks that certain principles can never be adopted, because they are
inconsistent and could not be properly followed. This makes them morally wrong by default.

Kant believes that there is one principle of morality from which all other principles are derived.
This is the “Supreme Principle of Morality”. (Thus the label “monistic deontology”).  Which means,
roughly: “Respect the reason within you”. This leads to the practical correlative (below).
 The supreme practical principle on which all morality depends is called the categorical imperative:

“ So act that the maxim of your action could by your will be a universal law”.

From this principle we will follow orders which he calls both categorical and hypothetical
imperatives. Categorical imperatives (supreme principles of morality) state a supreme or over-
riding command:

E.g.“do not steal”.

Hypothetical imperatives are derived from these. E.g.:  I think that disguising income is akin to
stealing, so I do not do it, and have a rule: “Don’t disguise income”.

Kant thinks we should follow "maxims" (rules of action based on pre-determined principles) like
the one just mentioned.  He thinks that all maxims ought to be universalizable--that is, that they
should be able to be accepted by all people. This means that they must conform to reason, and in
doing so will be the purest expression of what makes humans special: autonomy. This may be
Kant’s largest contribution to ethics.
 

Example: I have a maxim “I will lie whenever it suits my purposes". This would be an
unacceptable maxim because it is rationally problematic (inconsistent).  It cannot be
universalized. Imagine trying to make a universal rule of this type.  After awhile nobody would
believe anybody and the entire exercise would be pointless. Lying involves trying to deceive, but
if we all lied all the time people would never believe, and no one would be deceived. It would just
fall apart.

So there is a problem with the logic of the principle; it is inconsistent.

Notice that nothing has been said about utility or happiness, but only with regard to reason and
consistency.

Also, a principle cannot be right for you and wrong for others, that would be a problem of justice.
So this method is the means by which we can test our prospective rules for applicability. If our
particular rules pass this test, then we can (and must) use them.
 
 
A Major Problem with Kant’s system:
 

 Conflicting duties:

This is when you have two or more duties which seem to contradict each other. By doing one,
you neglect doing the other, which means that one of your duties is not served.  This can be
exemplified by the “fugitive at your door” case. Let's say you have a maxim which endorses the
imperative to never lie ("I will never lie").  But you have another one which says you will never
willingly allow someone's life to be endangered (based on the non-harm principle). It is your duty
to do both of these things, but they conflict in this case.  Which duty or rule is to take precedence
here? If you lie to protect the fugitive, then you have broken your duty to never lie--which is
wrong. If you tell the truth, you endanger the life of the fugitive, so you break your other duty--
which is also wrong. So what are you supposed to do? The answer is not obvious, and Kant does
not seem to be able to  get around this problem easily.
 So, as we have seen with all of the previous theories, Kant's system also strains under the weight
of criticism. Despite the brilliance of these authors, all can be more or less repudiated.

Summary of Consequentialism and Deontology:

Both: rational normative ethical theories developed by philosophers. They are designed to give
some rational, testable foundation to our moral thinking, and eliminate the appeal to faith or other
mysterious sources of certainty.

Consequentialism: Focus on Utilitarianism.

 Evaluative emphasis on outcomes or ends

 Right and wrong are determined on the basis of harm and benefit, and put in terms of happiness.
The GHP is considered the aim of morality.

 A strong connection with cost/benefit analysis.

 A helpful way of making sense of our moral judgements. Something to which we can all appeal.
 Many problems, perhaps the worst is potential violation of individual rights.
 RU is a variation which seeks to solve the problems by emphasising rules rather than acts.

Upshot: it’s a helpful theory in that it gives us a universal, reasonable, somewhat measurable
reference for morality, but it is not without its faults, and does not seem adequate to be the sole
guide.

Deontology:

Developed by Immanuel Kant. Distinguished from U-ism because of its focus on principles or
rules as the measure of morality.

 Emphasis on means rather than ends.

 Rational maxims become the guidance. They must be logically consistent and universalizable.
 Rightness lies in the following of the rule, doing one’s duty, no matter what the outcome. Act is
good for its own sake
 Happiness is subordinate to morality
 Problem: conflicting duties.

Upshot: another theory which is helpful but not conclusively the only theory we can use in all
cases. There are some problems.

 
 Ross:Pluralistic Deontology
Ross rejects the single theory approach. His is sometimes called the “no-theory” approach. He
tried to get over the problems of U-ism and Kantianism.

Ross wrote in the early to middle parts of this century. He tries to account for the complexity of
inter-personal relationships. Ross tried to address the  “backward looking reasons” (promises), 
issue which troubles utilitarians, and the problem of conflicting duties which plagues deontologist
like Kant.

To answer Kant: In Ross’s system, rules which can be over-ridden in the light of other
circumstances are called prima facie rules.

To answer the U-ians. Means are important too. Not just the consequences. So promises are
morally relevant. Some of the principles which underlie the theory are consequentialist.

Prima facie duty: an act which would be one’s duty unless overridden by something more
important morally.  Such duties are distinct and different from absolute duties. Rules which you
follow without qualifiation are called "sans phrase" .

The most important aspect of Ross’s  list is the fact that certain duties may be over-ridden for
other legitimate concerns.  That is, we have a general duty to follow these principles, but if a
situation arises where there is a conflict in our duties, such as when doing one of the things on
this list ends up causing harm, or some other sort of `evil', then we need not obey that particular
principle. This makes the principles or duties on this list prima facie, which means `on the face of
it', or `apparent'.

Ross’s list of Principles:

 fidelity
 reparation
 gratitude
 justice
 beneficence
 self-improvement
 non-maleficence
 

Explanation of principles:

 Fidelity: The duty to keep promises. Fulfil promises because one has made them.
 Reparation: The duty of restoring to a proper state. Making amends for previous wrongful acts.
 Gratitude: The duty to show thanks to others for their services. Showing goodwill to a benefactor.
 Justice: The duty to distribute rewards or punishments by merit. Fair dealing.
 Beneficence: The duty to “do good” and improve the condition of others. Active kindness.
 Self-improvement: the duty to help oneself by improving one’s virtue and intelligence.
 Non-maleficence: the duty to avoid doing harm or wrong to others.
 

Ross’s formulation of the principles removes moral emphasis from intention and motivation.
 How the decision making operates:

When I am in a situation, as perhaps I always am, in which more than one of these prima facie
duties is incumbent on me, what I have to do is to study the situation as fully as I can until I form
the considered opinion (it is never more) that in the circumstances one of them is more incumbent
than any other; then I am bound to think that to do this prima facie duty is my duty sans phrase in
the situation. W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good, P. 19. Cambridge University Press.
 

Problems:
The big problem with the theory has to do with differing intuitions and consciences. We have no
objective way of telling who is ultimately right, so the theory falls victim to subjectivism.When it
comes to the crunch –the crunch being how to decide who is right, the theory is not very helpful.
Differing rational intuitions come into conflict, and we cannot determine which is to take
precedence.

For good or bad this problem does not seem to effect the applicability of the list in a practical
(business) setting. Many firms use it as a basis, despite the problem. What gives it binding if not
moral force, is the fact that a company or organization demands observance of the code. Those
who break rules based on the list are disciplined. So what makes it right, is the might of the
enforcers of the list.

Contractarianism

This is an idea first developed by Thomas Hobbes (the same guy who gave arguments in favour
of the truth of Ethical Egoism). The Contractarian says roughly, that morality is what we agree to
as rational agents.  It is sometimes referred to as artificial morality because it is man-made and
man dependent.

Main idea: Morality consists in a set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that
rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow
those rules as well.

According to this theory there exists a contract between everyone and everyone. Although this is
not a formal contract. It is not like such a formal contract was ever struck, there is no way
everyone could ever get together to do so.

However, there is an implied social contract. Although we do not sign an agreement, we do or say
things which imply that we accept certain terms. James Rachels, in The Elements of Moral
Philosophy, uses the example of staying in a game you are playing according to the rules.
Although you did not sign anything you implicitly accepted the rules when you joined.

Contractarianism implies that morals are artificial or man made rather than natural.
Contractarians believe that people are not just naturally moral or in possession of moral
requirements. To them, morality is a social construct. People are taught what is right and wrong.
There are differing societies and different moralities, and therefore, moral codes are subject to
changes and amendments.

COntractarianism is centred around two main ideas:

 Rationality: or more properly, rational self-interest.

 Reciprocity: The idea that if I do something, you'll do something in return. It is a, “you scratch my
back, I'll scratch yours”, kind of principle. It also works both ways:  If you don't do your part; I don't have to
do mine.
 

Minimum Requirements:

Hobbes suggests that there are 2 basic rules to the social contract:

1. Principle of non-harm: cannot do violence except in self-defence

2. Principle of non-deception: we must be honest.

Moral Skepticism:
A branch of ethics which doubts that we can have moral certainty. It may question many things,
such as objective moral truth, universalizability, and the basis of right and wrong. There are many
theories which fall into this category, ranging from the radical to the merely cautious. It may also
consist of a range of theories which thinks we expect too much of morality.

Relativism
Cultural Relativism is a version of moral skepticism. It is an influential and interesting idea. It is
rather clever and profound - even if it turns out to be false. It can really set people thinking.

The central idea is that as there are different moral codes in each society, and there is no source
to appeal to which can provide a universal referent on right and wrong. The differing views are all
we have. Each society has its own morality, and none are in any position to say one is better than
the other. Everyone is equal (equally limited) as it were.

Consider the example of the Taliban in Afghanistan that destroys ancient works of art and forbids
women to have careers.  We think it is wrong, they think it is right.

Cultural relativists say that no moral view can take precedence in a case of  disagreement,
because there is no way to determine which is right.

We might accept Relativism:

a. because we think there is no universal objective morality.
b. because we think there is irreducible diversity between cultures
c. because we want to avoid imperialism and chauvinism

Problems about accepting relativism

1. Culture is enormously difficult to define, so how can we even compare properly?

2. It forces us into uncomfortable positions (that we don't really want to accept). Clearly we do think
some aspects of any society are better than some others in another society. R-ism says "too bad".
3. From this it inadvertently supports evil regimes
4. It undermines moral progress
5. It disables morality by effectively pushing people into moral quietism, which is the position that we
cannot comment or judge the actions of those of other cultures.
6. It is psychologically unacceptable: we cannot reasonably hold that a thing is both right and wrong
7. It is philosophically inconsistent: it says don't judge others, but does this in a universal way which,
by its own rules, it cannot.
8. Things are not as simple as consulting one's own societal norms to see if something is right or
wrong. Clearly, such rules may be mistaken. We might ask "why should I follow the mores of my society?"
Just because I don't do it does not mean that my behaviour is wrong. We might follow these rules
because they have been around for a long time. Or they may actually be good or right. But they could
also be wrong so they need to be questioned.

Reflection on Relativism
Relativism is very difficult to hold consistently.  Aside from the philosophical problems, the
consequences of accepting it are very unattractive. Some people still buy into it.

With that said it is important to note that it is still an important and influential theory, which is
probably not all wrong. Certainly some things that relativism tells us are true. I.e., there is
diversity, and  circumstances seem to have some effect on the morality of actions.

There are similarities in the fundamental morality of all cultures, even if there is much
disagreement in the details (Rachels uses care of the young). Think of things like incest and the
murder of the innocent. In most cultures these things are taboo. They relate back to values such
as justice and non-maleficence.

What is also good about it is that it gets us thinking about the strength and force of our own moral
convictions, and instils a humility or modesty with regard to pushing our moral views on others.

Food for thought:

It may also tell us something about the nature of morality. Perhaps morality does not operate
properly in large-scale settings. Maybe it functions more adequately in smaller, more limited
settings. This leads us into the nature and purpose of morality, as it might be considered from a
biological or psychological perspective. There is lots of new and interesting work on this, and it is
a hot topic in ethics today.

Subjectivism
The general idea of subjectivism is that values and morals are just personal likes and dislikes.
The term subjectivism quite literally means of the subject or the person in question.

Ethical subjectivism is like relativism taken to extreme. It says: not only do ethical values vary
from culture to culture, they vary from one individual to another. We all have slightly differing
opinions about what is right, and there is no way of telling who is correct about this. So there is no
objective right and wrong, only different people's opinions and views about morality.
 

Subjective relativism says our morality is based on our feelings, and nothing more. There is no
objective right and wrong for the believer of subjectivism. Any moral view is as good as another.

The Hell's Angels code of ethics. They hold that if one of their own gets into a fight it is the duty of
all the other bikers to join in to help their brother.

Subjectivists cannot say such things are wrong. If they do, all they are doing (they say) is
expressing how they feel about it.
 
 Rights.

Rights are a central feature of the study of ethics.  We commonly hear people say, "you have no
right to do that", or "that is my right". We want to examine this issue in some detail to explain
rights accurately and clear up some misconceptions as well.

Definition in 2 parts:

1. A right is a justified claim made by some individual, group, or society against some other
individual or group,
        or society in general.
2. A right on the part of one person imposes a duty or obligation on the part of another.

For the most part rights (so-called claim rights) exist in a legal context. What makes them so is
their enforceability. This is important for moral/legal distinction. Rights may also exist in a moral
context, but they are not so simple to enforce. We will discuss this further shortly.

Positive and Negative Rights

The above rights may be further categorized as either positive or negative rights.

A positive right is one which demands that someone else has a corresponding obligation to
provide you with the thing in question. There are many positive rights: you have one to primary
and secondary education. You have one to welfare.

Negative rights demand that no one interfere with you in attaining something you wish. It has a
corresponding obligation of forbearance on the part of others. You have a right to advertise
(within legal limits). No one can stop you from doing that.

On moral versus legal rights:

Moral rights do not have the enforceable status of legal rights normally, although some rights may
be both legal and moral. The right to go about your affairs is one such example. Moral rights are
more in the realm of customs or etiquette—at least in terms of enforcement. Legal rights follow a
procedure, they must be discussed by government, passed as law, and communicated  to the
public. Moral rights are not like this, but you may run into peer pressure, raised eyebrows, and
general disapproval if you break moral rights.
 
 

(c) 2003. By Mike McNulty. Not to be used without permission of the author.