Source of Ethics

1. Introduction – Scope
Ethics is one of the most controversial subjects of philosophy, mainly because of its
immediate relation to our everyday lives. You can hardly find a person who has not postulated
on what is “good” or “bad”, on what is “right” or “wrong”, “ethical” or “immoral”. The goal of
this paper is not to present a full analysis of moral theories or to give any advice. The purpose
of this article is to present the basic principles of ethics philosophy, so as to show the reader
what are the main possible explanations of why we want to be good (or bad)… Or in other
words: to present a list of potential “sources of ethics”. At the end, the conclusions are more
than astounding. What seems to be important is not the answer to the question “What is the
source of ethics?” but ethics itself! And the answer to this question can only come from
outside the realm in which the answer is born…

2. Definitions of Ethics
Ethics (Gr. ta ethika, <= ethos), also referred to as moral philosophy, is that study or
discipline which concerns itself with judgments of approval and disapproval, judgments as to
the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, virtue or vice, desirability or wisdom of
actions, dispositions, ends, objects, or states of affairs. There are two main directions which
this study may take. It may concern itself with a psychological or sociological analysis and
explanation of our ethical judgments, showing what our approvals and disapprovals consist of
and why we approve or disapprove what we do. Or it may concern itself with establishing or
recommending certain courses of action, ends, or ways of life as to be taken or pursued,
either as right or as good or as virtuous or as wise, as over against others which are wrong,
bad, vicious, or foolish. Here the interest is more in action than in approval, and more in the
guidance of action than in its explanation, the purpose being to find or set up some ideal or
standard of conduct or character, some good or end or sum mum bonum, some ethical
criterion or first principle. In many philosophers these two approaches are combined. The first
is dominant or nearly so in the ethics of Hume, Schopenhauer, the evolutionists,
Westermarck, and of M. Schlick and other recent positivists, while the latter is dominant in
the ethics of most other moralists. [1]

3. The source of Ethics

Many philosophers tried to explain what “ethics” is and what its source is. However, as it is
often the case with philosophers, an agreement was not reached. The notion of “good” or
“ethical/ moral “seems to elude most thinking people of our day, even though it is such a
“common” term. It seems that the most basic concepts – like the one of “morality” which is
the foundation of all human civilizations – are the hardest to define. And maybe that is why
they are so much important… The main theories are discussed below in summary, so as to
give the reader the basis for his/ her own philosophical inquiries.

3.1 Ethics as human nature

Some philosophers thought of “goodness” as something ‘natural’ to humans. From their
perspective, doing well is what we naturally do if we are brought up properly by our parents.
Of course “properly” has many interpretations – however it is true that most of us agree to
some “universal” and “basic” concepts of morality, like the “do not kill other people” principle
– no matter what our other beliefs are.

One of the greatest philosophers, Socrates, posited that people will naturally do what is
good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions, are the result of ignorance. If a criminal
were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither
commit nor even consider committing them. Any person who knows what is truly right will
automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he
similarly equated virtue with happiness. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is
good and therefore be happy. [2]The tool towards that “good” was self-knowledge. Socrates
insisted that every person must reach into himself and learn himself (the infamous “Know
thyself” <= Greek “Γνώθι σ’ εαυτόν”). We must all turn our attention from the outside world
to our inner “world” because this is the only way to know what is really “good” for us.

3.2 Ethics as “living good”

Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. Like
Plato, he regards the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance and so on) as complex
rational, emotional and social skills. But he rejects Plato’s idea that a training in the sciences
and metaphysics is a necessary prerequisite for a full understanding of our good. What we
need, in order to live well, is a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as
friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a whole. In order to apply that
general understanding to particular cases, we must acquire, through proper upbringing and
habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, which course of action is best supported by
reasons. Therefore practical wisdom, as he conceives it, cannot be acquired solely by learning
general rules. We also must also acquire, through practice, those deliberative, emotional, and
social skills that enable us to put our general understanding of well-being into practice in
ways that are suitable to each occasion. [3]
The principal idea with which Aristotle begins is that there are differences of opinion about
what is best for human beings, and that to profit from ethical inquiry we must resolve this
disagreement.

He insists that ethics is not a theoretical discipline: we are asking what the good for
human beings is not simply because we want to have knowledge, but because we will be
better able to achieve our good if we develop a fuller understanding of what it is to flourish.
In raising this question—what is the good?—Aristotle is not looking for a list of items that are
good. He assumes that such a list can be compiled rather easily; most would agree, for
example, that it is good to have friends, to experience pleasure, to be healthy, to be honored,
and to have such virtues as courage at least to some degree. The difficult and controversial
question arises when we ask whether certain of these goods are more desirable than other.

The “highest good”

It is not difficult to find things that are “good”-to-have. For example having friends, having
health or having courage are things that most people would agree that are “good”. However
who cannot agree that being sick is also as good as being healthy sometimes?

Aristotle’s search for the good is a search for the highest good. The great philosopher
assumes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three main characteristics: it
is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods
are desirable for its sake.

The goal is Eudemonia

Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudemonia” [Gr.ευδαιµονία](“happiness”)
and “eu zên” [Gr. ευ ζην](“living well”) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is
composed of two parts: “eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” To be
‘eudaimon’ (Gr. ευδαίµων) is therefore to be living in a way that is well-favored by a god. But
Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology, and it seems to have little influence on his
thinking. He regards “eudaimon” as a mere substitute for ‘eu zên’ (“living well”). These terms
play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone’s state of mind.
No one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal; rather, being eudaimon is the
highest end, and all subordinate goals—health, wealth, and other such resources—are sought
because they promote well-being, not because they are what well-being consists in. But
unless we can determine which good or goods happiness consists in, it is of little use to
acknowledge that it is the highest end. The biological fact Aristotle makes use of is that
human beings are the only species that has not only lower capacities but a rational soul as
well. The good of a human being must have something to do with being human; and what
sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live a better life, is our
capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason well, we live well as human
beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well over the course of a full life is what
happiness consists in. Doing anything well requires virtue or excellence, and therefore living
well consists in activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtue or excellence.

In summary, for Aristotle eudaimonia was all about practicing your virtues to the greatest
possible extent. Everything for Aristotle has a telos (goal), so doing your best towards
achieving this goal is your goal!
Aristotle’s conclusion about the nature of happiness is in a sense uniquely his own. No other
writer or thinker had said precisely what he says about what it is to live well.

But at the same time his view is not too distant from a common idea… [3]
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace. Oscar Wilde

3.3 Ethics as an “a priori” truth

Some philosophers view ethics as an “a priori” truth, i.e. like something that we have
embedded in us as “knowledge” prior to any physical or social experience (see “Religion and
Science Unification” for more on “a priori” and “a posteriori” notions). That knowledge is what
drives us into behaving good or bad during our life. Philosopher Kant played a major role in
that part. In this case the inherent validity of an invisible but imperative moral law is what
drives us into being good (or have guilt for being bad).

The “duty” of Kant

The 18 th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is a case in point. Although emotional
factors often do influence our conduct, he argued, we should nevertheless resist that kind of
sway. Instead, true moral action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions
and desires.
In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s method involves trying to convert our
everyday, obvious, rational knowledge of morality into philosophical knowledge. His methods
include the use of “practical reason”, which is based only upon things about which reason can
tell us, without deriving any principles from experience, to reach conclusions which are able to
be applied to the world of experience. Kant argued that there is a more fundamental principle
of duty that encompasses our particular duties. Kant is known for his theory that there is a
single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the “Categorical Imperative”. [4]
Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of
themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to
observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations
are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested. He believed that the moral
law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such
as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than
“worthiness of being happy”. Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and
only rational agents. [5]

A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives

that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example, “If you want to get a good
job, then you ought to go to college.” By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates
an action, irrespective of one’s personal desires, such as “You ought to do X” (for example:
“you should always tell the truth”). Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical
imperative, but one of them is especially direct:

Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. [4]

In summary, Kant believed that ethics is all about living according to rules which can be
generalized. And for Kant, only rules based on ‘logos’ could achieve this generalization.
Of course this view, as any other view which tries to find the source of ethics without referring
to God, has a major problem: It does not answer anything about the Source of ethics, but it
just pushes the problem back. Surely Logos is something wonderful to base ethics upon, but
where is Logos itself based on? What happens when my logic is different than yours?

In particular, many claim that there is a massive unanimity of the ethics practical reason in
man and that this indicates the inherent (a priori) nature of ethics in us. From the Babylonian
Hymn to Samos, the laws of Manu, from the Book of the Dead to the Analects, from the
Stoics to the Platonists, from Australian Aborigines to Redskins, one sees the same
monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery and falsehood; the same
injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young and the weak. In some unusual cultures the
law takes on surprising trapping (e.g. witch burning) – yet when surveyed closely these
apparent aberrations can be seen to arise from strongly held but misguided conclusions about
who is good or evil. [6][7]

Ethics NOT based on the judgement of a higher ‘judge’ is not ethics at all; it is just personal
opinion. Some people do some things simply because they feel like doing them, others do not
do the same things simply because they do not feel like doing them. This is what humans do,
in the same way they select what they like to eat in the morning or what they want to wear.

Ethical laws which are not “laws” (i.e. set and imposed by something of ‘higher essence’) are
not… laws at all. This is almost tautological in nature and should be self-evident, but for most
people it is not. If we accept the atheistic opinion that no ethical laws are written by the hand
of the God, then there are no no solid ethics whatsoever. In that case where a non-human
lawmaker of morality does not exist, we just have human laws which simply change all the
time based on the human will. Anything which is built on continuously shifting foundations is
subject to collapse. As simple as that. In the old days, human laws stated that is was legal to
have slaves, that it was legal to kill Jews, that it was legal to segregate between white and
black people. Human laws seem to be arbitrarily selected truths, changing all the time as per
our taste of good.

But can good and ethical be a matter of taste?

Moral Laws as absolute truth

The above-mentioned theistic ideas of the “eternal” nature of the true moral laws are based
on the same notion of “objects” Plato proposed. For example Plato explained the eternal
character of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a spirit-like
realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are also abstract, spirit-
like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual objects. Medieval philosophers
commonly grouped all moral principles together under the heading of “eternal law” which
were also frequently seen as spirit-like objects. [4]

3.4 Ethics as selfish desires

One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of humans.
17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not all, of our actions are
prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to charity,
there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing power over other people.
This view is called “psychological egoism” and maintains that self-oriented interests
ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view
called psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force
behind all of our actions.
18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler agreed that instinctive selfishness and pleasure
prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler argued that we also have an inherent
psychological capacity to show benevolence to others. This view is called psychological
altruism and maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive
benevolence. [4]

3.5 Ethics as a creation of society

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.
In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a
classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others
to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal
her car. [4] Many people claim that being good is just a result of society calling you to behave
in a certain way. No “a priori” truths, no “final causes” (eudaimonia), no inner human nature
(see Socrates), just plain society pressure to be “proper”… [8]

There are many philosophers who postulated ideas about how society does formulate or
should formulate ethics…

§ Locke spoke about how humans have some inherent rights, which they manage to
cultivate and protect through a social contract, which in turns gives the state power to
create laws to which we must abide.
§ Rousseau also spoke about this social contract, which makes us all come together under
the umbrella of a society which then in turn defines what is ethical and what is not.
§ Kelsen spoke about the hierarchical nature of laws, which gives laws their… lawfulness.
Hart attributed the validity of the highest law to the real event that some people where
organized in a state.
§ Hobbes spoke about the Leviathan – the state – which is what keeps people safe from
dying. The state which of course then defines ethics.
§ Hume as an empiricist, talked about how justice was in fact an artificial idea and that our
logos is essentially bound to the path of our emotions. He thought we cannot deduce what
is justice by reason alone. (so by denying this ability, he simply gave up the definition of
what is just to the society)
§ Even many ancient Greeks adhered to the idea that justice is simply something decided
and imposed by the powerful (Threaymachous, Gr. Θρασύµαχος).
Again, even though this type of solution to the problem seems logical, it leads to dead-ends
as the atheistic opinion that no “lawmaker” of ethics exists (see above). What seems logically
moral for a society, might seem totally immoral for another! Basing morality to the likes of
society is like basing good taste to the likes of fashion…

At the end, it is up to the individual to decide whether he/ she accepts the rules of society or
not. But besides the astounding philosophical shortcomings of such a proposal (which reduces
everything to the subjectivity of a person and to the potential shallowness of a society), there
are also many practical implications: Can a society founded on the rules it imposes on itself
ever be stable? A valid question to which an equally valid answer may exist: Can any society
based on rules it does not impose on itself ever be stable enough?

Models & Rules for deciding ethically

There are many “Ethical Decision-Making Models” which are based on the instructions of
society for what is good and what is bad. These models help you decide the ethical thing to do
when you are in the tight spot.

For example such a model could ask the following questions to help you decide the “ethical”
decision:

Are you treating others as you would want to be treated? Would you be comfortable if your
reasoning and decision were to be publicized? Would you be comfortable if your children were
observing you? [9]

Others have postulated “rules” that could be applied in order to reach an ethical decision. One
of these rules is the utility principle (also known as the “greatest happiness principle”)
which favors actions that produce “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”.
Ethical reasoning, consequently, consists of attempting to quantify happiness, and choosing
actions that maximize it. [10]This rule is a result of social impulses that have been
crystallized into a phrase that puts what society “wants” (as a unified set) above what a
person might view as “ethical” or “good”. Another very wellknown society-based rule is the
“do not do to others what you don’t want others do to you” rule.
Some of these models and rules are indeed useful guides. But one should remember that a
simple model cannot tell you how to behave correctly in all situations. Human judgement and
self-awareness is required. The more you attempt to analyze something the more you lose its
meaning and significance as a whole. No matter how much you analyze hydrogen and
oxygen, you will never understand the wetness of water…

3.6 Ethics without ethical code

The post-modern philosophers argue that there is no absolutes rights or wrongs and that all
ethical decisions are relative. However if this is the truth and no ultimate truth exists, if there
is no absolute right or wrong, then should we be discussing about ethics at all? According to
Bauman, the essence of the postmodern approach to ethics lies not in the abandoning of
characteristically modern moral concerns, but in the rejection of the typically modern ways of
going about its moral problems (that is, responding to moral challenges with coercive
normative regulation in political practice, and the philosophical search for absolutes,
universals and foundations in theory). Postmodern ethics is thus, to use Bauman’s phrase,
‘morality without ethical code’.

Human reality is messy and ambiguous – and so moral decisions, unlike abstract ethical
principles, are ambivalent. It is in this sort of world that we must live. Knowing that to be the
truth is to be postmodern. Post-modernity, one may say, is modernity without illusions (the
obverse of which is that modernity is post-modernity refusing to accept its own truth). The
illusions in question boil down to the belief that the “messiness” of the human world is but a
temporary and repairable state, sooner or later to be replaced by the orderly and systematic
rule of reason. The truth in question is that the “messiness” will stay whatever we do or
know, that the little orders and “systems” we carve out in the world are as arbitrary and in
the end contingent as their alternatives. [11] Post-modernism surely gives a new perspective
in ethics…

4. Conclusion
The conclusion is that from a philosophical point of view, unfortunately… there is no
conclusion! Philosophers have not agreed on the source of ethics and neither have people.
Even though the notions of good and bad are so close to us, they are still the hardest to
define… And that is why perhaps the extensive analysis of the matter draws us more and
more away from the source of ethics. There are many reasons for a person to do good to his
fellow humans. But philosophy cannot help us substantiate or justify any of them. Only
through self-knowledge can someone begin understanding why he might want to be good
instead of evil. If someone wants to start dealing with ethics, philosophy is the best place to
initialize his search, but not the place to end his quest. Ethics was and still is the most
important subject for our everyday lives and one can only approach it via the irrationality of
realms of knowledge beyond the inherent limitations of philosophy. The wisdom of doing the
right thing passes through the dark alleys of knowledge available only to those who accept
that they possess no knowledge. What is ethical is comprehensible only from those who
believe in ethics without the need to (philosophically) understand ethics and justify their
actions.

At the end the greatest men simply accepted their death

Without giving any explanation for that.

Life is life. Ethics is ethics.

There is good and bad. Evil and kindness.

And living is the only way of knowing them.

The great philosophical questions of humankind can wait…

Or perhaps these are the greatest philosophical questions…

At the end, perhaps not all things are to be explained.

Perhaps logic and philosophy have their limits.

Not all things are to be analyzed and understood.

Love. Forgive. Smile. Cry.

Be a good person!
Does it matter why?