Lady of Lourdes Hospital and Colleges of Caybiga Inc.

Part 1
Midterm
Overview

This unit provides an introduction to the study of ethics and a brief overview of some of
the main branches of philosophical thought about ethics. As well as introducing the
central ideas that relate to environmental and development ethics and how these two
areas of ethical study are interrelated, this unit shows why ethics as a discipline can
provide useful tools for clarifying arguments, for understanding a range of viewpoints in
a debate, and for justifying one’s own ethical positions more clearly. Key conceptual
frameworks and some key terms are introduced and explained.

Aims

• To introduce some key terms relating to the study of ethics.

• To introduce some key ethical ideas, principles and frameworks.
• To explain the rationale for studying environmental and development ethics and to
examine how these areas of study are interrelated.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, students should be able to:

• define the terms ‘philosophy’, ‘ethics’, and ‘morality’
• outline the rationale for studying ethics, particularly in relation to environmental and
development concerns
• explain the difference between deontological and teleological ethics
• define and briefly explain some of the key terms relating to ethical monism, relativism
and pluralism

Interdependencies

This unit provides a concise introduction to the study of ethics. It introduces key ethical
terms and concepts that recur throughout the other units of the module. Therefore it is
recommended that you study this unit before attempting the other units, as it provides
useful knowledge and understanding of those key terms and concepts.
Overview
The study of ethics belongs primarily within the discipline of philosophy, in the sub-
discipline of ‘moral philosophy’, and so our account begins there. Philosophical study
concerns the systematic and rational consideration of human systems of belief. The
process of asking and answering questions about belief systems is therefore
fundamental to philosophical study – it is not sufficient merely to ‘learn’ the answers that
have been proposed by other philosophers! The branch of philosophy called ‘ethics’ is
concerned with questions concerning how human beings ought to live their lives, and
about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. In this section we look at how philosophers attempt to
answer such questions in a systematic and rational way. This section also introduces
the fields of environmental and development ethics, and consider how these two fields
of study are interrelated.

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this section, students should be able to:
• define the terms ‘philosophy’, ‘ethics’, and ‘morality’
• outline the rationale for studying ethics, particularly in relation to environmental and
development concerns
 Lesson 1: What is ‘philosophy’?

What do philosophers do?

What do you think philosophers do? How do they spend their time? Spend a few
minutes thinking about what you know about philosophers past and present; if possible,
try to identify some of the advances in knowledge that they have made. Try to write a
brief definition of philosophy. What is the purpose of ‘doing’ philosophy?

As human beings live their lives, they acquire a wealth of information about the world
around them that they use to build up a collection of ideas about the world and their
place within it. Those ideas come from a variety of sources. They may come from
scientific discoveries, personal experience, traditional beliefs commonly held by people
in the society in which they live, and so on. Much of the time people accept those ideas
without questioning them; they are relatively ‘unconsidered’ or ‘unexamined’. A
philosopher, however, will attempt to scrutinize such ideas about the world to see if they
are based on sound evidence. Instead of having a collection of unorganized beliefs and
opinions that may be incoherent and self-contradictory, the philosopher believes that a
person’s views should be carefully considered and organized into a coherent,
meaningful, rationally defensible system.

The earliest European philosophers about which we have historical records came from
the Greek colonies in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) and lived in the 6th century BCE.
Previously, it is assumed that people accepted a variety of myths and legends that
explained the world around them. The early Greek philosophers, however, realized that
different societies believed in different mythologies, and that those ideas often conflicted
with each other. Those philosophers, who are sometimes referred to as the natural
philosophers, tried to find rational, coherent ways to explain the natural world and its
processes. Different philosophers have had different aims and have been concerned
with asking and answering different questions. While some of the questions that
philosophers have asked have changed through the centuries, some important
questions continue to be asked. Why are we here? How was the world created? How
should society be organized? How ought we to live? What is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’? These
are some of the questions that have intrigued and occupied philosophers across the
ages (see 1.1.1).

1.1.1 The aims of philosophers

‘The people who have engaged seriously in philosophizing have had varying aims.
Some have been religious leaders, like Saint Augustine, and have tried to explain and
justify certain religious points of view. Some have been scientists, like René Descartes,
who have attempted to interpret the meaning and importance of various scientific
discoveries and theories. Others, like John Locke and Karl Marx, have philosophized in
order to effect certain changes in the political organization of society. Many have been
interested in justifying or promulgating some set of ideas which they thought might aid
mankind [sic]. Others have had no such grandiose purpose, but merely wished to
understand certain features of the world in which they lived, and certain beliefs that
people held.’

Who are the philosophers?

Look at the list of names below. How many of these philosophers’ names do you
recognize? Do you know anything about their ideas or theories? Choose one name and
find out some biographical information about that person and some brief details about
the nature of their work.
Karl Marx
Saint Augustine
René Descartes
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Martin Heidegger
John Locke
George Berkeley
John Dewey
Thomas Aquinas
Baruch Spinoza
John Stuart Mill
Immanuel Kant

You can see from reading the extract in 1.1.2 that philosophers have asked a wide
range of questions and have come from many different backgrounds.
1.1.2 Who are the philosophers?

‘The occupations of philosophers have been as varied as their aims. Some have been
teachers, often university professors giving courses in philosophy, as in the instance of
Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages, teaching at the University of Paris, or John Dewey
in the 20th century, lecturing at Columbia University, or Martin Heidegger at the
University of Freiburg, or Ludwig Wittgenstein at Cambridge University. Others have
been leaders of religious movements, often taking an active part in the affairs of their
organizations, like St Augustine, who was Bishop of Hippo at the decline of the Roman
Empire, or George Berkeley, who was the Bishop of Cloyne in Ireland in the 18th
century. Many philosophers have had ordinary occupations, like Baruch Spinoza, who
was a lens-grinder by profession. John Locke was a medical doctor; John Stuart Mill
was a writer for magazines, and briefly a Member of Parliament. A good many of the
most prominent philosophers have been scientists or mathematicians. Some have had
careers which kept them far removed from the excitement and crises of everyday life;
others were continually occupied in the most active pursuits.’

What all these philosophers have in common is that they have attempted to answer
their chosen questions by working carefully and systematically through their ideas,
convictions, and possible prejudices to arrive at an answer that they believe to be fair
and rational. As Wraight (2011 p. 47) explains, philosophers ‘like to take problems back
to their first principles, to look at the core concepts we employ and to see if they stand
up to scrutiny’. While it might seem obvious to many people that, if there is suffering and
inequality in the world, we should try to do something to help other people, for instance,
philosophers try to find reasoned and rational explanations for why it is our duty to help
people who are less fortunate than ourselves. So, through the study of ethics, you are
invited to examine critically your own and others’ arguments and intuitions about some
important issues, however clear-cut those arguments may seem to be at first glance. As
Wraight (2011 p. 48) points out, ‘many things that once seemed obvious (like witches
having the power to curdle milk and the sun revolving around the earth) no longer do so
to most people, in part, because rational individuals took the time to scrutinize them and
found them wanting’. The study of ethics is, therefore, just as much concerned with
developing the ability to ask and answer questions as it is with ‘learning’ the answers
that other people have suggested to some of the questions posed here. Hopefully, by
building up a clearer picture of the building blocks of people’s beliefs, values and
arguments, ‘we can be more confident about our actual moral behavior in the real world.
We might even change our minds about a few things’ (Wraight 2011 p. 48). Remember
too that a philosopher is simply someone who looks at the world and tries to find
coherent, rational answers to the questions people ask about that world. So you can be
a philosopher, too!
 Lesson 2: What is ‘ethics’?

What is ‘ethics’ concerned with?

Are you the type of person who usually ‘does the right thing’? How do you know what
the ‘right thing’ is? What do we mean by the term ‘ethics’? Before you read on, take a
few moments to write down a definition of what you think the term means.

The branch of philosophical study that focuses on ‘ethics’ is concerned with studying
and/or building up a coherent set of ‘rules’ or principles by which people ought to live.
The theoretical study of ethics is not normally something that many people would regard
as being necessary in order for them to conduct their everyday activities. In place of
systematically examined ethical frameworks, most people instead carry around a useful
set of day-to-day ‘rules of thumb’ that influence and govern their behavior; commonly,
these include rules such as ‘it is wrong to steal’, ‘it is right to help people in need’, and
so on. But sometimes the vicissitudes and complexities of life mean that these simple
rules are sometimes put to the test. Consider the idea that it is wrong to kill. Does this
mean that capital punishment is wrong? Is it wrong to kill animals? Is killing in self-
defense wrong? Is the termination of pregnancy wrong? Is euthanasia wrong? If we try
to apply our everyday notions of right and wrong to these questions, straightforward
answers are not always forthcoming. We need to examine these questions in more
detail; and we need theoretical frameworks that can help us to analyze complex
problems and to find rational, coherent solutions to those problems. Whilst some people
attempt to do this work individually, for themselves, philosophers attempt to find general
answers that can be used by everyone in society.

Think about a significant decision that you have made that had an effect (either for good
or bad) on the lives of other people. This could be a decision about changing a job,
moving home, responding to a dilemma, helping somebody who was in difficulty, etc.
How did you arrive at your decision? Was your decision based explicitly on ideas of
what was right and wrong? Try to examine and record precisely the justifications for
your decision. Can you identify any underlying principles or rules which you used to
reach your decision? Examples of such underlying principles or rules might include: ‘I
should do the best thing for my career in the long run.’ ‘It is OK to tell someone a lie if it
prevents someone from being hurt by the truth.’ ‘I should always help someone in
difficulty.’

Ethics and morality

The terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ are not always used consistently and precisely in
everyday contexts, and their ordinary meanings do not always correspond with
philosophers’ use of the terms. Ethics is often used in connection with the activities of
organizations and with professional codes of conduct: for instance, medical and
business ethics, which are often formalized in terms of exhaustive sets of rules or
guidelines stating how employees are expected to behave in their workplaces (such as
in respect of a duty of care or confidentiality that health-care workers owe to their
patients; or the medical ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for
autonomy, and justice). Morality, on the other hand, is more often used in connection
with the ways in which individuals conduct their personal, private lives, often in relation
to personal financial probity, lawful conduct and acceptable standards of interpersonal
behavior (including truthfulness, honesty, and sexual propriety). These ‘everyday’ uses
of the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ are not so much incorrect by philosophical standards,
as too limited. The philosopher’s interest in the theoretical study of ethics is with the
idea of conduct that is right, fair and just, does not cause harm, and that can be applied
to a wide variety of cases. For our purposes, each of the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’
captures the essence of that idea sufficiently well. In what follows, then, it is not really
necessary to over-emphasize the distinction between ethics and morality; here, those
terms may be used interchangeably to refer to ideas about how humans ought to act.

Areas of ethical study

There are three broad areas of ethical study:

• Meta-ethics, which focuses on the meaning of ethical terms themselves (for instance,
‘what is goodness?’), and on questions of how ethical knowledge is obtained (for
instance, ‘how can I distinguish what is good from what is bad?’), rather than on the
more applied question of ‘what should I do in a particular situation?’. Meta-ethics is
therefore concerned with the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes and
judgments. Meta-ethics examines such themes as what moral questions mean, and on
what basis people can know what is ‘true’ or ‘false’.

• Normative ethics, in contrast, is the study of ethical acts. It therefore focuses

explicitly on questions of ‘what is the right thing to do?’ in general. Normative ethics is
concerned with questions of what people ought to do, and on how people can decide
what the ‘correct’ moral actions to take are.

• Applied ethics, which is concerned with how people can achieve moral outcomes in
specific situations. Therefore, it is concerned with the philosophical examination of
particular – and often complex – issues that involve moral judgments. Areas such as
bioethics, environmental ethics, development ethics and business/corporate ethics may
be regarded as areas of applied ethics. (The distinction between normative and applied
ethics, however, is becoming increasingly blurred.)

The area of meta-ethics is more of a ‘pure’, abstract or theoretical, field of study,

whereas the areas of normative and applied ethics tend to focus more sharply on how
ethical considerations relate to human actions in general (in the case of normative
ethics) or in particular situations and contexts (in the case of applied ethics). Given that
our interest is principally on the study of ethics in relation to environmental and
development issues, it is the latter which will provide the most useful insights.
Therefore, our focus will be primarily on questions that fall within the areas of normative
and applied ethics.
 Lesson 3: Moral intuitions and critical reasoning

Moral sentiments and principles

The study of ethics involves reasoning about our feelings. In other words, it involves
making sense of and rationalizing our intuitions about what is ‘right’ or ‘good’. Almost all
people, to a greater or lesser extent, are capable of experiencing feelings of empathy
towards others. Empathy provides us with a sense of what others are feeling and may
thereby allow us to identify with other people. Empathy therefore gives us what Traer
(2013) refers to as our moral sentiments; and ethical reasoning about these sentiments
gives us our moral principles. The integration of these moral sentiments and principles,
Traer (2013) argues, is our conscience. Our moral conscience, then, is based on
emotions, but should also be supported by reason. All societies are characterized by
their own ethical ideas – expressed in terms of attitudes and beliefs – and their own
customs (their notions of what is considered customary). Some of those ethics are
formalized in the laws and regulations of a society, nation or state. Such customs and
laws can influence the consciences and the moral sentiments of those living in a
society, as individuals acquire ideas and attitudes from their families and from their
wider society. Philosophical ethics, however, asks us to take a step back from these
influences and instead to reflect critically on our sentiments and attitudes.

Rationalization
Studying ethics, then, involves attempting to find valid reasons for the moral arguments
that we make. Most people already have general ideas – or what philosophers call
‘intuitions’ or ‘presumptions’ – about what they think is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. But a
philosophical approach to ethics requires people to think critically about the moral ideas
that they hold, to support or refute those ideas with convincing arguments, and to be
able to articulate and explain the reasons and assumptions on which those arguments
are based. As Traer (2013) explains, in moral philosophy, an argument is not simply
about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons underlying those beliefs or
opinions. This means that the real value of discussing and debating ethical questions is
not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’ against the other person! It is more
important to provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas, and to allow
for rational – and deeper – understanding of the reasons underlying our beliefs, ideas
and attitudes. Crucially, this requires careful listening to, analysis of and learning from
the arguments that others make. P563 Ethics for Environment and Development Unit 1
14 © SOAS CeDEP One common fault with many arguments about what is ‘right’ or
‘wrong’ – and one that Traer (2013) highlights – involves what is known as a
rationalization. A rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be
rational or credible motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives.
For example, if a landowner seeks to build a plastic recycling plant and states that this
is driven by a desire to create local employment opportunities – whereas in fact their
true motive is to make a profit – then this is a rationalization. The landowner is not
giving their true reasons for wanting to build the plant. If, however, they argue that they
want to make a personal profit and create local jobs, then they may be giving two true
reasons for their motives.
Types of reasoning Traer (2013) explains that we can uncover these types of errors in
our own and others’ arguments by using what he calls ‘critical reasoning’. Three forms
of critical reasoning that individuals can use to justify their arguments are outlined in
1.3.1.

1.3.1 Three forms of critical reasoning ‘Reasoning by analogy explains one thing by
comparing it to something else that is similar, although also different. In a good analogy,
the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is clarifying. For instance, animals are like
and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the similarity sufficiently strong to
support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman animals as we do to
humans?’ ‘Deductive reasoning applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every
person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every
person.’ ‘Inductive reasoning involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The
greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it.’ The fact that there is
mounting evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on
global climate, for example, is used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral
duty to reduce carbon emissions.

Ethics and religious faith

There is another important argument that people use when making ethical arguments:
religious faith. For many people, ’morality and religious faith go hand in hand’ (Traer
2009 p. 8). Rather than relying on rational arguments, some people view actions as
being right or wrong in terms of whether they are commanded by a god. Some moral
philosophers do not view arguments based on religious faith as being rationally
defensible. They believe that we can determine through rational reflection what is right
and wrong. If a god commands only what is right then, logically, this makes divine
commands unnecessary; we are able to know what is right or wrong without relying on
any divine commandments, as we can use rational reflection.

However, Traer (2009) argues that a discussion of faith-based arguments is relevant to

moral philosophy for several reasons. For a start, people do not always agree on what
is right or wrong. It is not therefore clear that we can determine what is right and wrong
simply through rational reflection. Additionally, given that so many people in the world
do look to religion for moral guidance, we should not underestimate the ability of ‘the
moral teachings of a religious tradition […] to persuade the public to embrace a higher
moral standard’ (Traer 2009 p. 9). While we may insist that moral principles and
decisions should be justified by rational arguments, Traer (2009) argues that
consideration of religious arguments should not be excluded from the study of ethics.
Whether or not one personally chooses to accept faith-based arguments as valid within
ethical discussions is a decision that requires careful consideration.

Testing moral arguments

Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives us a reason to
support an argument. What kind of reasoning are they using? If they are using a
principle to support their argument (deductive reasoning), then what kind of principle is
it? Is the principle rational? If they are providing evidence to support their argument
(inductive reasoning) then is the evidence reliable? Have any motives that might be
behind their arguments been clarified (i.e. are they giving rationalizations, not reasons)?
Does the conclusion drawn make sense, given the reasons they have given? All of
these questions that we ask about peoples’ arguments may seem a little onerous and
off-putting. With such rigorous criteria, some people may feel that they don’t want to
make any argument at all, as they are bound to make mistakes in their reasoning!
However, as Traer (2013) makes clear, most people already use critical reasoning when
they make arguments and question other people’s arguments. We have an idea of what
we think is right based on our experience (our ethical presumptions), and we explain
those ideas to other people based on our feelings (intuitions) and reasons. It is
important and useful to develop the ability to test your own arguments and those of
others, both to address the dilemmas that occur in our personal lives, our communities
and the organizations for which we work. Wraight (2011) argues that there are three
main ways of testing a moral argument. These are outlined in 1.3.2.

1.3.2 Three ways to test a moral argument (1) Factual accuracy. The 18th century
philosopher David Hume (1711—1776) argued that we should not derive an ‘ought’
from an ‘is’. This means that we cannot say that something is wrong or right simply
based on how things are. This is reasonable, but it does not mean that ethical
discussion should be divorced from fact; the accuracy of the factual content of a
discussion is very important. Consider the example — one that Wraight (2011) uses —
of someone who maintains that giving aid to charities working in Africa is wrong
because they believes that 90% of the money donated in fact goes to paying wealthy
consultants and NGO workers, and only 10% goes to alleviate poverty. If this person
were shown that this was factually incorrect, and that in fact 90% of all donations were
used to alleviate poverty, then their moral argument would lose its force.
(2) Consistency. Arguments need to be consistent. One can only argue that it is morally
wrong to kill one person and yet morally acceptable to kill another, if one can
demonstrate that there is a morally relevant difference between the two individuals.
Wraight (2011) gives the example of the moral argument that debts owed by poorer
nations to international lenders should be cancelled. Does this therefore mean that all
poor people who owe money to banks should also have their debts cancelled? If you
don’t think that all individual debts should be cancelled but you do think that poorer
countries’ debts should be cancelled, then you have to show that there is a moral
difference between the two. Otherwise your arguments are inconsistent. (3) Good will.
Wraight (2011) admits that this is the most difficult criterion to quantify. While arguments
may be factually correct and consistent, they also need to ‘exemplify good will’ (Wraight
2011 p. 52). This involves resorting to our intuitions and emotions, which are notoriously
difficult to integrate with rigorous theoretical debate.
 Lesson 4: Environmental and development ethics

We have considered what ‘philosophy’ is, what ‘ethics’ means, and what it means to
look at arguments critically and provide careful reasoning to support our arguments. The
types of issues and questions that ethicists look at are, of course, very broad-ranging,
and so philosophers tend to specialize in one area of ethics. When philosophers
consider how general ethical arguments can be applied to one particular area of
peoples’ private or public lives that involve moral judgements (such as the areas of
development ethics and environmental ethics), we call this applied ethics. Many often
quite distinct areas of applied ethics have therefore developed, each with their own
academic journals, conferences and influential authors.

Development and environmental ethics

Two such areas of applied ethics are of direct concern to us. The first, development
ethics, emerged as a field of study in the second half of the 20th century. It questions
and looks at the ethical implications of ideas such as ‘progress’ and at the implications
of various types of social change. It considers the costs and gains from major
socioeconomic changes, and whether those in wealthier countries have a duty to help
those in poorer parts of the world. As with most areas of applied ethics, it has a
purpose: to ‘help in identifying, considering and making ethical choices about societal
“development”, and in identifying and assessing the explicit and implicit ethical theories’
(Gasper 2004 p. xi). In other words, it aims to give clearer understanding of the key
issues surrounding socioeconomic development, and to unpick the many hidden
assumptions about what is the ‘right’ or ‘good’ thing to do. Key issues include social and
human rights, poverty reduction, the gap between rich and poor, and planned
international intervention by some nations in the development of others.
A second area of applied ethics is environmental ethics. Environmental ethics emerged
as a separate area of philosophical study during the 1970s. The approaches of
environmental philosophers are varied, but most take as their starting point the belief
that we are facing a critical point in our relationship with the non-human world, and that
in order to avert (or reverse) an ecological crisis, we need to reassess the ways in which
we value the non-human world. While not all environmental philosophers suggest that
we need a new approach to the ethical values we assign to nature, many varied
suggestions have been made as to which alternative frameworks we should use for
valuing nature. These two important areas of applied ethics are central to understanding
many important contemporary issues, such as those related to sustainable
development, climate change, and environmental management. Issues are also raised
by environmental and development ethicists in relation to another important area of
applied ethics: corporate ethics (although some would regard business/corporate ethics
as a further area of applied ethics in its own right). 1.4.1 provides some examples of the
issues that concern both development and environmental ethics.

1.4.1 State of the World 2012 In 1992, governments at the Rio Earth Summit made a
historic commitment to sustainable development — development that promotes the
maintenance and wellbeing of both people and ecosystems. More than twenty years
and several summits later, humanity has never been closer to ecological collapse; one
third of humanity lives in poverty; and another 2 billion people are projected to join the
human race over the next 40 years. How will we move toward sustainable prosperity
equitably shared among all even as our population grows, our cities strain to
accommodate more and more people, and our ecological systems decline? In short,
‘sustainable prosperity’ would come as a result of ecological regenerative development
that enables all human beings to live with their basic needs met, with their dignity
acknowledged, and with abundant opportunity to pursue lives of satisfaction and
happiness, all without risk of denying others in the present and the future the ability to
do the same. This means not just preventing further degradation of Earth’s systems, but
actively restoring those systems to full health.

Separate fields of study As outlined in 1.4.2, environmental and development ethics

have often been treated more or less separately in the academic literature, and the area
of corporate and business ethics has its own literature again (although there are some
exceptions to these divisions).

1.4.2 Ring-fencing the environment ‘Much environmental thought and ethics, as well as
specific academic fields such as green political theory, has fixated on the environment
as a ring-fenced and isolated issue. Even discussions of sustainable development tend
to focus on its oxymoronic status rather than establishing connections between
environmental and social justice. This is often combined with a corresponding assertion
that most Western citizens need to engage in considerable material sacrifices in order
to achieve a lighter ecological footprint. On the opposing side, environmental sceptics
challenge environmentalism by focusing exclusively on the ways in which eco-
improvement expenditures could be redeployed in order to promote poverty alleviation,
health provision and education services. The battle lines drawn here tend to emphasize
the differences between a materialistic conception of development and economic
growth as a means to reduce human suffering and a post-materialist conception of a
steady-state economy and, in some cases, a transformation to low-impact lifestyles with
an improved quality of life.’

However, if we look at many key contemporary ethical issues, we can clearly see that
they are of interest to all three of these areas of ethics. For example, the extent to which
we should address patterns of behavior that affect global climate clearly encompasses
questions related to environmental ethics in any number of different ways, from the
impact on species to the ability of the environment to sustain human communities.
However, also of central concern, are questions that are of key interest to development
ethicists such as the global impact of consumption patterns by richer nations, or the fair
distribution of global resources.

Viewed from a contemporary understanding of these issues it may seem strange that
the two main areas of development and environmental ethics have remained so distinct.
However, it is not only academic writers who have traditionally separated these areas;
‘environmental protection’ and ‘social justice’ have traditionally been presented as an
‘either/or’ option in policy circles. ‘The environment’ has often been seen as an issue to
be addressed when the going is good, and only after more important issues such as
crime, schooling, poverty, etc. have been addressed.
Environmental citizenship
While the separation of these two fields of study is still the case to some extent, the
environment as an issue has become an increasingly prominent policy concern in
recent years. Statements such as those in 1.4.1, State of the World 2012, demonstrate
the extent to which issues of environmental protection and social development have
become entwined, often under the umbrella of ‘sustainable development’. This
integration of social and environmental concerns is also reflected in the activities and
publications of campaigning groups. Whereas, in the 1980s and 1990s, campaigns
were often led by specialist NGOs that tended to focus on either environmental or
development issues, grassroots citizen groups are increasingly speaking for themselves
in campaigns and the distinctions between ‘environmental’ or ‘social justice’ campaigns
are becoming blurred (Smith and Pangsapa 2008). As the arguments in 1.4.3 make
clear, in order to understand more fully the ethical debates and issues underlying key
contemporary issues, it is important to consider arguments and issues relating to both
the environment and development. One term that is sometimes used to refer to this
combination of concerns is environmental citizenship.

1.4.3 Environmental and social justice ‘Right from the start we want to emphasize the
importance of recognizing that environmental issues cannot be separated from
questions of social justice — that there is no contradiction between addressing
environmental issues and social inequalities. These are necessarily complementary
issues, not contradictory ones. Even the preservation of wilderness areas and the
conservation of transformed and managed landscapes have social implications both in
terms of the access to environmental goods of people traditionally excluded from these
benefits and the social justice concerns that directly pertain to rural folk and traditional
livelihoods that can often be relegated to insignificance by environmental campaigns
that some NGOs have initiated without consultation or forethought.’

LEARNING ACTIVITY
Create a concept map to connect ideas between philosophy, ethics and morality. You
may use any type of map according to your own style.
 Chapter 2
NORMATIVE ETHICAL TRADITIONS: IDENTIFYING RIGHT AND WRONG

Overview
In this section, several key ethical theories from the tradition of Western philosophy are
introduced. Normative ethical theories are concerned with ethical action: in other words,
with what people ‘ought’ to do in general. This section provides a brief overview of the
main types of normative ethical theories and it introduces key, recurring terms and
concepts.

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this section, students should be able to:
• explain the difference between deontological and teleological ethics
• identify the main ethical theories within these traditions
 Lesson 1: Western ethical theories

Why use ethical theory?

Every day, you probably make dozens or even hundreds of decisions about what could
be considered ‘ethical’ issues. Should I do the washing-up (even though I am tired) so
my partner doesn’t have to? Should I help my colleague out with getting the report in on
time, even though I’d rather leave work early and join my friend for a social meeting?
We usually weigh up the rights and wrongs of these small decisions fairly quickly and
easily. But it isn’t always easy to know what the right or wrong action is. On closer
examination, even a question as apparently simple as whether or not to give aid to
alleviate poverty may be fraught with difficult issues. On what ethical basis should
individuals give money to charity? Is it because we have a duty to give some of our
income to help people less fortunate than ourselves? Or is it because we have a duty to
uphold other peoples’ fundamental human right to live healthy and secure lives? Is it
simply that giving money to charity makes us a good person – and, perhaps, allows us
to feel better about ourselves? Whatever the reason, is it the consequences of our
actions that matter? (For example, is it important to know before we donate money what
percentage of our money will go to helping the needy and how much will go to paying
consultants or NGO executives?) Or is it purely the action itself (in this case, the act of
giving) that is intrinsically right?

These questions are a starting point for a brief consideration of the main traditions of
Western ethical thought. These types of theories, which are concerned with how we
ought to act, belong to the branch of philosophical study called normative ethics.
(Remember that ‘normative’ ethical theories are concerned with moral actions, and with
how people ‘ought’ to live their lives.) Whilst some of the terms used here may be new
to you, the ideas behind those terms will probably be more familiar. Most of these ideas
form the basis of modern-day environmental and development policy, and they are very
commonly used as the basis of ethical arguments, often as a result of deductive
reasoning. When people use deductive reasoning, they are applying a general principle
to a particular situation. For instance, a general principle such as ‘all people have the
right to a clean environment’ may be applied more specifically: ‘therefore a company
should not be allowed to pollute the environment and to endanger the health of local
residents’. By becoming familiar with the main traditions of ethical thought, you will be
able to identify clearly how you use these principles when you construct your own
arguments. You will also be able to recognize these arguments when they are used by
other people. By thinking about the problematic issues surrounding these moral
traditions, you can apply these critiques both to your own thinking and the arguments of
others. If you are aware of some of the theoretical conflicts between these traditions,
and if you can recognize when these ethical principles are being used, this can equip
you to spot inconsistencies in the arguments that you or others make.

Ethical paths
Traer (2013) illustrates the task of understanding normative ethical traditions in terms of
different paths on a mountain. For example, when people use the words ‘duty’ and
‘rights’, they are referring (consciously or otherwise) to theories that are concerned with
right action. If, on the other hand, they are discussing our ethics in terms of our
‘character’ or ‘relationships’, then they are referring to theories of being good. ‘Right
action’ and ‘being good’ identify different paths on the mountain. If you look at the
diagram in 2.1.1, you can see that ethical theories emphasizing duty or rights branch off
the right action path, whereas ethical theories concerning character or relationships
diverge from the being good path.

2.1.1 Ethical paths in Western philosophy (picture)

The main fork in the path in Western philosophy which Traer (2013) identifies is that
between deontological and teleological ethics. These are terms that you may not have
come across before. However, do not be too concerned! If you look at the diagram in
2.1.1, most of the words will not be new to you. Most of the philosophical terms used
here will become very familiar to you as you progress through the material.

The word deontological is derived from the Greek word “deon”, meaning ‘duty’. It is
concerned with right action – in other words, with doing the right thing simply because it
is the right thing to do. Deontological theories focus on whether ethical decisions per se
are right or wrong, regardless of the consequences or intentions of those ethical
decisions.

The word teleological is derived from two Greek words: telos, which means ‘purpose’
or ‘goal’; and logos, which refers to ‘science’ or ‘study’. It is concerned with being good
– in other words, with being a good person with good intentions. Therefore, in contrast
to deontological ethics, the teleological ethical traditions concentrate on the purpose of
– or the intention behind – human actions. The focus of teleological ethical theories is
on what the goal of a given decision is.
 Lesson 2: Deontological ethics

Non-consequentialism
All deontological ethics theories are non-consequentialist. This means that they place
the emphasis on the decision or action itself – on the motivations, principles, or ideals
underlying the decision or action – rather than being concerned with the outcomes or
consequences of that decision or action. This reasoning is founded on the desirability of
principle (usually duties or rights) to act in a given situation. The two main non-
consequentialist theories are ethics of duties and ethics of rights and justice. Both of
these are rooted in assumptions about universal rights and wrongs and responsibilities.
This means that people who promote these types of ethical principles usually believe
that they should be applied to everyone, everywhere in the world. If a child in one
country has a right to an education, then this means that all children, everyone in the
world, should have a right to an education. Examples of these types of principles can be
found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which the text in 2.2.1 is
taken.

2.2.1 Article 2: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no
distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status
of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.’

Read 2.2.1, Article 2: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, once again. Make a
list of at least ten rights which you think that all people on the planet have.

Duties
Most people believe that all human beings have some duties to other human beings.
Duties can be positive, such as the duty to look after one’s children, or negative, such
as the duty not to murder another human being. When people use the language of
duties, they usually do so in a way that implies that the duty is universal to all human
beings (or at least to all adult humans of sound mind). The foundation of theories of
duties is the theory developed by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724–
1804). Rather than relying on religion to tell us what our duties are, Kant believed that
we can rely on our powers of reason to do so. At the center of Kant’s theory of duty is
what he termed categorical imperatives. Some actions and decisions are founded on
our personal desires. For example, you could say, ‘If you want to live in a beautiful
house, you ought to work hard’. However, this is not a categorical imperative, as it is
based simply on fulfilling our desires. A categorical imperative tells us that we must do
something, irrespective of our personal desires: for example, ‘You ought to look after
your parents’.

A central principle of the categorical imperative is that we should treat people as an end,
never as a means to an end. This means that people should be treated with dignity.
Treating someone as a means to an end involves using them as a tool to achieve
something else. Buying products made by workers who have been paid unacceptably
low wages in order to ensure a cheap price for the goods they produce, is treating the
workers as a means to an end and it not fulfilling the duties we have to those workers.
Buying guaranteed ‘fair trade’ products, in contrast, recognizes our duty to ensure that
the workers who produce our goods earn acceptable wages.

The concept of duty is not only used in terms of secular arguments. The exhortation to
‘do to others as you would have them do to you’ is a text that is taken from Christian
scriptures, but it has parallels in many other religious traditions. Both secular and
religious notions of duty give us many duties, such as those to keep promises, to avoid
injuring others, to compensate others when we do them harm, to uphold justice, to
improve the living conditions of others, etc. Duties are very often closely linked to the
notion of rights. When somebody has a right, usually this implies that others have a duty
to uphold this right.

Look back at the list of (at least) ten human rights that you wrote for the exercise above.
Do you have a duty to uphold any of these rights for anyone else?

Rights
Rights theory is one particular duty-based theory of ethics. A right is a justified claim
against another person’s behavior. So rights and duties are related in that the rights of
one person imply the duty of someone else to uphold that right. As Traer (2009 p. 103)
explains, ‘[t]he most widely accepted justification for moral rights relies on Kant’s
deontological argument that we have a duty to treat every person as an end, and not as
a means to our ends, because every person is autonomous and rational, and thus has
intrinsic worth’. The concept of individual human rights is fundamental to Western legal
systems, and has developed both from the argument that all humans have certain
natural rights and from religious notions that rights come from God (Traer 2013). The
American Declaration of Independence asserts that ‘all men’ [sic] are ‘endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights’ (Traer 2009 p. 104). The ‘French revolution
proclaimed that the “rights of man” [sic] are natural rights intrinsic to the humanity of
each person’ (Traer 2009 p. 104). Throughout the 19th century, the justification for
rights became more secular, but rights were usually confined to the nation. However,
the idea that rights were liberties guaranteed to citizens of a nation was challenged in
the 20th century by the realization that Nazi Germany acted legally under German law
when it committed what were later classified as crimes against humanity. The United
Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (see 2.2.2) is based on the
reasoning that justice and equal treatment of humans ought to be applied universally.

2.2.2 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18 Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
[sic] religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
 Lesson 3: Teleological ethics

Consequentialism
Consequentialist ethics come from the teleological branch of ethical theory. You will
remember that teleological theories focus on the goal of the ethical action.
Consequentialist theories are those that base moral judgements on the outcomes of a
decision or an action. If the outcomes of an action are considered to be positive, or to
give rise to benefits, then that action is held to be morally right. Conversely, if the
outcome causes harm, then the action is held to be morally wrong. The judgement of
right or wrong depends on the consequences of the decision or action. The two main
consequentialist theories considered here are egoism and utilitarianism.

Egoism
Egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation for all of our actions.
It is worth distinguishing between egoism as a descriptive argument (an argument that
tells us how the world actually is) and egoism as a normative argument (an argument
that tells us how the world ought to be). Egoism as a descriptive argument describes
human nature as self-centered. In its strongest form, it argues that individuals only ever
act in their own self-interest. Even where they appear to be acting in others’ interests,
descriptive egoism explains that the person is really motivated by their own self-interest
disguised by arguments (rationalizations) of ‘doing one’s duty’ or ‘helping others’. In
fact, our motivation behind doing ‘good deeds’ may be to make ourselves feel good; to
make ourselves look good in the eyes of others; or because we believe that, by helping
others, others will help us. Even if we donate money to charity anonymously, we may
still only really do this because it makes us feel good about ourselves. In contrast,
egoism as a normative argument tells us that we should be acting in our own interests,
as this is the only way that overall welfare can be improved. If everyone acts in their
own self-interest, then society will become more efficient, which will be in everyone’s
interest. It is therefore morally right to pursue one’s own self-interest. One of the most
famous normative egoists was Adam Smith, one of the pioneers of neo-classical
economic theory. He argued that self-interested behavior is right if it leads to morally
acceptable ends. Smith argued that if everyone followed their self-interest, then society
as a whole would be improved. (Importantly, he also argued that if egoism led in fact to
the worsening of society, then it should be abandoned.) The theory of egoism is at the
heart of capitalist arguments that a corporation’s sole responsibility is to its
shareholders. However, some form of social and environmental responsibility can be
consistent with egoism because egoist decisions may address immediate moral
demands by aiming to satisfy long-term self-maximizing objectives – of the firm (e.g.
profitability) or the individual (e.g. philanthropy). While it is an important theory for
understanding economic rationality, we do not consider egoism in great depth here. Of
more interest is another consequentialist theory: that of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism
The modern form of the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism derives from 19th
century British philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and it has
been particularly influential in areas of the world influenced by British culture. Rather
than maximize individual welfare, utilitarianism focuses on collective welfare and it
identifies goodness with the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people:
the ‘greatest happiness principle’. So maximizing benefits for the greatest number of
people involves net assessments of benefit: utility is the net result of benefits and
‘disbenefits’ – or costs. Utility has entered modern economics as a key quantitative
concept. The concept of trade-offs is specifically embraced and social and
environmental cost–benefit analyses are explicit utilitarian tools for assessing the
goodness of an action. A simple balance sheet of costs and benefits can be drawn up to
assess the overall utility of a decision.

Utilitarianism has three essential elements:

• Whether an action is right or wrong is determined solely by its consequences.
• The value of the consequences of an action is assessed in terms of the amount of
happiness or well-being caused.
• In assessing the total happiness caused to a number of people, equal amounts of
happiness are to have equal value, no one person’s happiness having greater value
that another’s.

2.3.1 Why preserve biodiversity? Reason 1: Feeding the world A mere 20 species
provide about 90% of the world population’s food. All major food crops, including corn,
wheat, and soybeans, depend on the introduction of new strains from the wild to cope
with evolving disease and pests. If those strains are lost, the security of our food supply
will be threatened. For example, a wild relative of corn called milpilla (Zea
diploperennis) is exceptionally disease-resistant and is the only perennial in the corn
family. If successfully interbred with domestic corn, its genes could boost corn
production by billions of dollars. Zea diploperennis grows on only one mountain in
western Mexico.

Virtue ethics
Another branch of the teleological strand of ethics is that of ‘being good’. The most well-
known of these ethical theories is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics shifts the analytical
emphasis away from rule-based decision-making (of deontological ethics) or of the
consequences of an action (e.g. in utilitarianism) towards the ethics of individuals and
the ethics of human character. So, for example, where a utilitarian would argue that
giving to a charity maximizes well-being in society, and a deontologist would argue that
we have a duty to help others, a virtue ethicist would point to the fact that helping others
displays desirable virtues such as being charitable or benevolent. Other desirable
virtues include honesty, courage, friendship, mercy, loyalty, modesty, patience, and so
on. The opposite of virtues are vices. These terms are explained in 2.3.2.

2.3.2 Virtues and vices ‘[I]t is possible to see the ethical validity or correctness of an
action in terms of conformity to certain types of conduct. Instances or patterns of
conduct that are ethically right, good and proper are virtues, while those that are wrong,
bad or improper are vices. This […] pattern of ethical evaluation lends itself particularly
to expressions of ethical judgement that emphasize the character of the actor, so that
not only is the act virtuous, but also the person who reliably acts in virtuous ways.’
Whilst the roots for virtue ethics in Western philosophy can be found in the ancient
Greek philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, as a theory it fell out of favor for many
centuries. However, during the 20th century virtue ethics again became an important
area of ethical study. In particular, some philosophers argue that it can overcome some
of the criticisms of traditional ethical traditions examined in the next section.

LEARNING ACTIVITY

Write an essay of not less than 500 words with minimum of three paragraphs
differentiating Deontological and Teleological ethics. Discuss also which is most
significant between these two ideas based on your own point of view.
 Lesson 4: Limitations of traditional normative theories

This section has provided a brief overview of the normative ethical theories which are
influential in ethical thought. The pros and cons of each theory could be examined in
much more detail, and further examples of how these theories are used in policy
debates and in constructing arguments could be given. Nevertheless, for now, you
should have gained a clear enough overview of these theories to understand what some
of the key terms refer to, and perhaps also to recognize some of these principles in use.
However, it is useful to look at some general criticisms of these normative ethical
theories. The ethical theories presented in this section are from the Western
philosophical tradition; they are based on varied assumptions; and together they provide
a pragmatic framework for judging right and wrong in decision-making. Yet they have
been criticized for being too ‘neat and tidy’ – and perhaps too contrived or calculating –
for the real world. Crane and Matten (2007) sum up the critiques of these theories in five
related points. In their view, traditional ethical theories are limited because of the
following:

• They involve a high level of abstraction from reality: the real world is complex and such
a ‘principled’ approach to resolving day-to-day dilemmas about behavior is unhelpful
and ignores the real-world context of decision-makers.
• They may be narrow in their application: the ‘reductionist’ critique suggests that the
focus on one particular aspect of ethics, such as rights or duties, reduces the complexity
of ethical issues to one narrow parameter of reality when all are important.
• They are overly academic: perhaps the abstraction and narrowness are a reflection of
theoreticians who live in a world – perhaps the ‘rarefied’, ‘ivory tower’, academic
environment – that gives undue value to the ‘wisdom’ of such specialists as the arbiters
of what is right and wrong and of how to decide between the two.
• They are inhuman: again, the principles are enunciated in an impersonal context in
which decision-making becomes ‘formulaic’ and human relations, instincts, and
emotions are absent.
• They involve prescriptive approaches: the principles and their application suggest that
ethical dilemmas can be solved by living by a given set of rules, whereas true decision-
making requires a high involvement of individuals and ‘ownership’ through using their
own discretion and judgement.

These objections arise from within a ‘global society’ that is itself changing in diverse
ways. Generally, in Western countries, at least, there are trends away from absolutism
and towards flexibility and subjectivity, perhaps towards a more modern – or post-
modern – personalized, individualist, and situational ethics. The rise in the popularity of
virtue ethics in recent decades has, in part, been a reaction to these criticisms.
Alternative cultural paradigms are likely to contribute new insights that may not replace
the evolutionary pathway of philosophy started by the ancient Greeks around 2500
years ago, but are likely to influence the patterns of behavior within international
institutions, organizations, and business throughout this century.
 Chapter 3
KEY ETHICAL ISSUES: WHOSE ARGUMENTS COUNT?

Overview
In this section, we examine two key issues associated with studying ethics. First, we
look briefly at the relationship of ethics with scientific knowledge. Since scientific
knowledge has a strong influence on our beliefs which, in turn, influence our values, it is
important that we consider the quality of the scientific knowledge upon which we base
our arguments. We then move on to consider issues of ethical monism, relativism and
pluralism. If we make a moral argument, does that mean that it is simply a
rationalization of our own arguments in our specific situation? Or can we argue that our
ethical principles should be adhered to by others? And can one person legitimately use
different moral frameworks in different situations? These types of questions form the
subject of this section.

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this section, students should be able to:
• define the term ‘meta-ethics’
• define and briefly explain some of the key terms relating to ethical monism, relativism
and pluralism
 Lesson 1: Meta-ethics

What is ‘meta-ethics’?
The study of meta-ethics refers to the nature of ethical terms and concepts and to the
attempt to understand the underlying assumptions behind moral theories; therefore, it is
the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties,
statements, attitudes, and judgments. It covers a broad range of questions surrounding
how we know what moral truth is (and even if moral truth exists), and how we learn
about moral facts. Meta-ethical questions are, by their very nature, abstract. It might
seem that they do not necessarily bear much relation to the task of developing practical,
decision-making tools. However, some of the issues are very important and relevant to
that task and meta-ethics receives some attention here.

If we begin to consider whether or not one should be a just person, for example, then
we are very quickly faced with questions about the nature of justice and about what
being a ‘just’ person means. Is justice a human invention? Can we accept that ideas of
justice can be different in different societies? Or is the notion of justice an eternal,
unchanging concept that should be upheld by everyone, everywhere, and throughout all
time? This is not merely an abstract, academic question. The question of whether or not
one culture’s notion of justice can and should be imposed upon another has historically
been – and continues to be – a cause of profound conflict between people.

Ethics and scientific knowledge

The first ‘meta-ethical’ issue we look at in this section is the relationship between ethics
and scientific knowledge. The question of the relationship between how the world ‘is’
and how the world ‘ought’ to be is one which philosophers have long considered. Most
famously, David Hume (1711–1776) summed this up in what he termed the naturalistic
fallacy, which suggests that one cannot infer from is to ought, nor can one make an
inference from scientific observations to ethical arguments. In other words, Hume
believed that you cannot say that something is right by describing how the world is.
That many people own and drive a car to work every day does not necessarily imply
that these and indeed other people ought to do so, for example.

This is not to say that one cannot and should not use facts when supporting one’s
arguments. Basing our arguments on sound facts and knowledge about the world is
very important, particularly when we are making consequentialist arguments. It is almost
impossible in practice to undertake an accurate utilitarian analysis without some form of
scientific evidence about the likely outcomes of choosing one action over another. A key
example is climate change: if we do not know the likely outcomes of our actions, how
can we decide which path of action (or inaction) we should take? And even if we are
talking about deontological principles, we need to base our notions of what is right or
wrong on fact. We might say that we think it is wrong in principle to change the genetic
structure of a tomato by mixing with those of a fish, whatever the consequences. But in
order to be able to enter such a debate we need to be informed about what the science
involves.
However, we should also be careful when choosing what sort of knowledge we base our
arguments on. Scientific knowledge is often seen to predominate over all other forms of
knowledge. It is viewed to be objective and, in itself, value free. But is it possible to have
objective, value-free knowledge? A full discussion of the production of scientific
knowledge is beyond the scope of this section. However, we should always try to be
aware of where knowledge comes from, who it is funded by, and for what purpose it has
been made public. In other words, we should subject scientific knowledge to the same
kind of rational scrutiny which we use for other kinds of ideas and notions.
 Lesson 2: Ethical monism, relativism and pluralism

Monism and relativism

So far, you have been introduced to a range of approaches to considering ethical

dilemmas. As you have been reading them, you will probably have agreed with a lot of
the theories that have been introduced so far. It would seem sensible to take a decision
that has the best possible outcome for all concerned (utilitarianism). But, at the same
time, you may also believe that there are some universal rights which all humans have
(deontology). You probably also do things each day because you think it makes you a
good person and not because of any duty or consequences that this action might have
(virtue ethics). It is clear that philosophers propose many different approaches to
deciding what action is right or wrong. Which of those approaches is right? How can this
be determined? And, importantly, who should decide which ethic is the correct one to
adopt? If it cannot objectively be decided which approach is right, does this mean that
the study of ethics is nothing more than a series of different people’s opinions? Perhaps
they are all right! If so, what happens when the different frameworks reach different
conclusions or even conflict?

Such questions can be approached in several ways. Some philosophers argue that it is
possible to make objective decisions about our ethics and that identifying one, valid
ethical theory should be the main task of philosophers. This position is called ethical
monism. Others philosophers, in contrast, believe that it is impossible to make such
objective ethical judgements and that any decision about which particular ethical
approach is ‘right’ is nothing more than a personal preference, and will depend on
people’s individual feelings, their cultural and religious background, etc. This position is
called ethical relativism.

Do you think that you are an ethical monist or an ethical relativist? Do you think there is
another option?

A dilemma

Traditional ethical theories (such as deontological theories) are generally absolutist and
normative because they reflect a belief in universally applicable moral principles and
objective qualities of right and wrong, on which there need be no debate. So, many of
the principles we looked at in the previous section are monist. Monism is nice and tidy.
It simply asks us to choose one moral framework and to apply it to our ethical decision-
making.

But how many of us can call ourselves monists? As you were reading through the
ethical theories in the previous section you probably found yourself agreeing with more
than one of the theories. Many philosophers have argued that the world is not the neat
and tidy place that monists would have it be. People often use a range of ethical
frameworks to make their decisions.
So should we argue then for ethical relativism, and say that all ethical frameworks have
some validity? If you accept the ethical relativist’s argument, this leaves the study of
ethics in a difficult position. If we cannot say that our ethical frameworks amount to
anything more than personal preference, then we are not left in a very strong position to
promote any one ethical decision over another. Development ethicists would have to
conclude that whatever a particular culture promoted as right or wrong, was indeed right
or wrong for that culture. Environmental ethics would not be able to hope to fulfil its
promise of addressing the environmental crisis by promoting forms of decision-making
that will protect and conserve the non-human world, as there would be no basis for
arguing that people should adopt alternative frameworks for thinking about the natural
world. The study of ethics would become nothing more than describing and comparing
the ethical arguments. There would be no question of being able to promote one ethical
argument over another.

Ethical pluralism
We are not adopting a monist approach to ethics here. You are not expected to be able
to argue that one of the ethical traditions introduced in the previous section is better
than the others in all situations. However, neither do we argue that all ethical arguments
are equally valid. An alternative to the rigidity of ethical monism and the ‘anything goes’
attitude of ethical relativism is ethical pluralism (see 3.2.1).

3.2.1 Ethical pluralism ‘Pluralism is an alternative to monism and to relativism. Rejecting

the monist view that there is only one correct answer in ethics, pluralists also reject the
relativist claim that there can be no right answer. Instead, moral pluralists maintain that
there is a plurality of moral truths that cannot (perhaps unfortunately) be reconciled into
a single principle. According to monists, this posture is the same as relativism.’

DesJardins argues that that we are probably asking too much of ethics if we expect one,
single, correct answer to every moral dilemma we face. While science and mathematics
usually seek or require – and sometimes even provide – certainty and unambiguous
answers, it may not be appropriate to expect the same of ethics. But this, he argues,
does not mean that we have to abandon rationality. While mathematics may (usually)
be able to give us a single, unequivocally correct answer, even sciences such as
medicine do not always give one answer; there may be a number of valid ways to
interpret a test or to treat a certain condition. Two different but equally competent
doctors may therefore prescribe slightly different treatments. However, this does not
mean that all treatments are equally valid. There is a big difference, DesJardins (2006
p. 264) points out, ‘between a good physician and a quack’.

In the context of environmental ethics, DesJardins (2006) argues out that, while there
are large areas of disagreement, there are a number of areas where strong consensus
does exist between environmental ethicists. For example, almost all agree that the
narrow approach to environmental valuation within classical economics and the
preference utilitarianism that forms the backbone of many environmental policy
decisions should be rejected. While different approaches give different answers to
explain why it is wrong, it is agreed that valuing the environment solely in terms of a
human resource for short-term economic gain is not acceptable, given the limitations
and fragility of natural ecosystems.

Intrapersonal pluralism
Ethical pluralism is the acceptance that there may be more than one correct moral
framework that we can use. However, it differs from relativism in that it does not accept
that all frameworks are equal – morality, according to a pluralist, does not simply come
down to personal preference. It is possible to make rational judgements between
various frameworks and to judge some to be better than others. The debate over
whether ethicists should be searching for one single unified moral framework (as moral
monists believe) or whether a range of frameworks can be useful to us (as moral
pluralists believe) has become quite heated, and the argument is complicated by there
being several different forms of moral pluralism. Here, we make only a single distinction
between two broad types of pluralism. The first question that we will consider is whether
one person can legitimately use different ethical frameworks to make different
decisions. This is called intrapersonal pluralism. Can we use Kantian deontology to
make one ethical decision and then use virtue ethics to make another? The second
question is whether it is acceptable for different people, or different cultures, to use
different systems of ethics. This is the question of interpersonal pluralism. While the
arguments surrounding the pluralism debate are rather complex, the question of
whether we can acceptably follow more than one ethical theory is, nevertheless,
important to consider.

Consider the type of moral pluralism described above. Do you think we can use different
moral theories for different relationships? Think about the ethical decisions that you
take. Do you use different ethical frameworks for different decisions? Do you sometimes
defend your answers using rights theory, for example, and at other times use utilitarian
reasoning?

First we are going to consider intrapersonal pluralism. J Baird Callicott is an

environmental philosopher who argues against adopting moral pluralism. Read 3.2.2
and consider his arguments.

3.2.2 Callicott’s characterization of pluralism

‘Moral pluralism, crudely characterized — I hope not crudely caricatured — invites us to
adopt one theory to steer a course in our relations with friends and neighbors, another
to define our obligations to fellow citizens, a third to clarify our duties to more distantly
related people, a fourth to express the concern we have for future generations, a fifth to
govern our relationship with nonhuman animals, a sixth to bring plants within the
purview of morals, a seventh to tell us how to treat the elemental environment, an eighth
to cover species, ecosystems, and other environmental collectives, and perhaps a ninth
to explain our obligations to the planet, Gaia, as a whole and organically unified living
thing.’

Callicott (1990) argues that this type of inconsistency ends up frustrating individuals.
Mature moral agents need one system, he believes. Otherwise, what do we do when
these principles overlap and contradict? Pluralists suggest that we prioritize our ethics,
use our intuition, moral tastes, and sensitivities to work out which to follow. But Callicott
(1990) argues that individuals cannot play ‘metaphysical musical chairs’: we cannot be
utilitarians one minute, and then slip into Kantianism the next. We cannot live with
constant self-contradiction. Furthermore, Callicott (1990) believes that pluralism can
allow unscrupulous or weak moral agents to choose principles that favor their own
advantage.

‘With a variety of theories at our disposal, each indicating different, inconsistent, or

contradictory courses of action, we may be tempted to espouse the one that seems
most convenient or self-serving in the circumstances.’

Has your opinion of pluralism changed? Do you think that Callicott’s arguments are
valid? Does an individual need one, unified theory to cover all the ethical decisions that
they make in order to be consistent?

Interpersonal pluralism
You may have reached the conclusion that, in order to be consistent, an individual
cannot play ‘metaphysical musical chairs’ and select different ethical frameworks to
justify different moral decisions as they please. You may agree with Callicott (1990) that
an individual needs one coherent moral framework that is not contradictory. Or,
alternatively, you may think that it is acceptable for different ethical theories to be used
for different relationships or in different areas of life.

Whatever your answer, these questions relate to intrapersonal pluralism – the theory
that one individual person can rationally follow more than one ethical theory. Here, in
contrast, we consider a slightly different question. Even if we say that a person should
follow only one, unified ethical theory, does this mean that everyone in the world should
follow this theory? In other words, is there only one, morally correct theory to follow, or
can we consistently argue that what is right for me does not necessarily have to be right
for everyone, everywhere in the world? If you believe that we can argue the latter, then
you are an interpersonal pluralist.

However, before we accept pluralism as a useful compromise, we should think very

carefully about the consequences. What would happen if different people followed
different ethical frameworks within a society? Could some people potentially lose out?
For example, if one person follows a deep ecology ethic, but their neighbor follows an
anthropocentric utilitarian ethic, there is likely to be conflict between them. How do we
deal with these conflicts? How do we decide who is right or wrong?

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, pluralists point out that interpersonal
pluralism is what, in fact, we encounter particularly in today’s multicultural societies.
Then again, why is it that people coming from different societies should have different
ideas about the environment and should use different ethical frameworks?
Taking a pluralist approach clearly has its difficulties. However, when we look at
development and environmental policies, it will often be the case that there is not one
clearly ‘correct’ decision to take and numerous incorrect ones. Moreover, each decision
will probably result in an outcome where some people gain and some people suffer. Not
all of these options will be equally good or bad. Examining the ethical issues behind
each option can help us to make clearer decisions – and can hopefully ensure that we
choose one of the better options.

LEARNING ACTIVITY
Make a 15-minute video of different arguments you have experienced in your life and
how ethics can be a basis in solving it.
Lady of Lourdes Hospital and Colleges of Caybiga Inc.

Part 2
Final