ETHICAL THEORIES

·                     March 12, 2010

F    Course Outline

1.                   Clarifying Ethics

2.                   Basic features of ethical judgment

3.                   The fields of Ethics

·                     Normative ethics (Moral Philosophy)

·                     Theories of values

·                     Teleological theories

·                     Deontological theories

3b.       Meta-ethics (Analytic/Critical Ethics)

3c.        Applied or Practical Ethics

·                     Environmental ethics

·                     The great debate between anthropocentricism and non-anthropocentricism

v    March 26, 2010

F    Clarifying Ethics.

As it is the norm in any field of study, we shall precede our discussion here with a proper conception of the discipline involved. Therefore we start with the interrogation: What is ethics?

As a word, ethics is derived from the Greek word ‘ethos’, which means habit or custom. The Latin equivalent is ‘mores’. According to Richard T. Garner, ethics is the branch of philosophy in which man attempts to evaluate and decide upon particular courses on moral action or general theory of conduct. In his own position, A. T. Radoslav states that ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the value of human life in a systematic and scientific manner. It is concerned with the type of conduct or character that is approved of or disapproved of in terms of right or wrong or good or bad; ethics seeks a critical grasp of the principles and standards that guides a man in making morally right choices in his daily activities.

Ethics could also be defined as the systematic study of the fundamental principles of morality. Morality, in itself, is a set of natural rule, which regulates human behaviours/actions in relation to one another in society.

·                     Basic Features of Ethics or Moral Judgement

From a definitional angle, a moral judgement is a kind of normative judgement passed on a person in order to evaluate his or her moral conduct in society. In order words, a moral judgement is ontological evaluative of the moral conduct of a moral agent in relation to the other in society.

By a ‘moral agent’, we mean a person who has full capacity and has control of the capacity to reason out his conduct in relation to the other. And the ‘other’, is also called the moral recipient who is the receiver of the moral action of the moral agent. Furthermore, the two terms are conventionally or socially interchangeable because a moral agent as a rational actor in a given situation may become a moral recipient in another situation.

·                     Basic Feature of Moral Judgement.

There are certain basic features which a moral judgement necessarily possesses.

1.                   Rationality of human beings

Moral judgement can only be passed on rational human beings. By rationality, we mean the thinking capacity to weigh out the likely merit and demerit of an action, in the first instance before acting. In order words, actions of such persons, such as senile old man or woman, a very small child, imbeciles are not open to moral valuation or be made to engage in moral evaluation or be morally or ethically evaluated.

2.                   Deliberation/Intentionality of Action

It is not all actions of a moral agent that are open to moral evaluation. It is only those actions that have been deliberately or intentionally taken that are subject to moral evaluation. Therefore involuntary action or induced actions of a moral agent ought not to be subjected to moral evaluation.

3.                   Sociality of Action

Purely personal actions such as eating, sleeping, travelling, reading books, etc are not subject to moral evaluation unless they are somewhat established to be having some sort of connection to the well-being or otherwise of the other people in society. Put differently, it is only actions of moral agents that have overt or clear connection to the well-being or otherwise of the other people in society that are subject to moral evaluation.

4.                   Universalisability of Moral Judgement.

Moral statement such as: “killing is wrong”, “prostitution is wrong”, “almsgiving is right” etc, are usually taken by some moral philosophers to be universalisable in principle, that is, they ought to have universal acceptance, principally speaking.

However, some other moral philosophers such as moral relativists have argued against the principle of universalisability of morality. It must be noted that Immanuel Kant happened to be a western philosopher of note who holds unto the principle of universalisability of moral claim.

5.                   Normativity of Moral Judgement.

Ethical judgement is normative/prescriptive in nature. This means that an ethical evaluation of a man’s conduct is always done against a given system of ethical norms or ethical theory. This system of ethical norms or theories prescribes what a morally right conduct is.

6.                   The language used in ethical theory may be positive or negative.

The language of moral judgement may be in the positive or negative form. Examples of moral ethical statements expressing positive moral judgement are the following

·                     Helping a righteous man is right

·                     Almsgiving is right

·                     Giving sustenance to the poor is right.

However, examples of ethical or moral statement expressing negative moral judgements are the following.

·                     Prostitution is wrong

·                     Helping a condemned hardened criminal escape jail is wrong

Furthermore, negative moral judgement may sometimes be explicit and at some other times may be implicit. An example of explicit negative moral judgement is: prostitution is wrong. However, an example of implicit negative moral judgement is prostitution is not morally right.

F    The Field of Ethics.

As noted in the course outline, the field of ethics is trifurcated into:

·                     Normative ethics otherwise called moral philosophy

·                     Meta-ethics, otherwise called analytical or critical ethics.

·                     Applied ethics, otherwise called practice ethics.

F    Exam questions

1.                   Clearly distinguish between ethics and morality

2a.        Clearly explain what an ethical judgement is

2b.       Discuss the basic features of ethical judgement

v    April 23, 2010

F    Normative Ethics

Normative ethics, otherwise called moral philosophy, has two subsets: the first subset is called the theory of value otherwise called axiology. It examines the philosophical problems of goodness or badness. The representative questions of this subset of normative ethics are: what things, persons, motives, states of affairs and character traits are good or what things, persons, motives, states of affairs and character traits are bad.

Theories of values may be monistic in nature. This means that only one thing or kind of thing is thought to be intrinsically or ontologically good. At the some other times, theories of values may be pluralistic in nature. In this case, certain things or kinds of things are regarded as intrinsically or ontologically good in nature.

The second subset of normative ethics is called theory of obligation. This deals with philosophical problems of right or wrong conducts. Theories of obligation mat be teleological in nature. Theories of obligation are described as teleological when they state that the rightness or wrongness of an action is a function of its consequences/result, actual or expected. Examples of teleological theories of obligations are the following:

1.                   Ethical or normative egoism

2.                   Ethical or normative utilitarianism

3.                   Ethical or normative altruism

However, theories of obligation are described as deontological when they state or hold that the rightness or wrongness of a conduct is a function or factors other than consequences or result. According to the obligation, factors such as intentions, motives, rules, contracts and such like are very important in morally evaluating human conducts.

F    Definition of Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is a division of the discourse of ethics that is mainly concerned with the standards or principles of right and wrong behaviour. It attempts to explain, states and often times urge obedience to a rule or principle. In order words, normative ethics is concerned with presenting and justifying a guide to right conduct. It uses terms such as good, bad, right, wrong etc, to express/voice preferences, decisions and choices. The terms are also employed to critique, grade, persuade, praise, blame and encourage.

F    Meta-Ethics

Meta-ethics, otherwise called analytic or critical ethics, is mainly concerned with the language of normative ethics. Meta-ethics engages in a critical examination of the terms employed in the discourse of normative. Therefore, we may define meta-ethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. Examples of theories that are normally examined under meta-ethics are the following:

1.                   Ethical scepticism

2.                   Ethical relativism

3.                   Ethical intrusionism

4.                   Ethical emotivism

5.                   Ethical naturalism

6.                   Ethical prescriptivism

All these theories are also regarded as theories of moral knowledge.

F    Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is yet another branch of ethics. The central aim of applied ethics is to apply normative principles in the examination of controversial issues such as abortion, euthanasia, animal rights. In the contemporary world, applied ethics has been subdivided into the following:

1.                   Administrative ethics – the application of ethical principles to administration in the world.

2.                   Business ethics – the application ethical principles to business

3.                   Environmental ethics

4.                   Sexual ethics, otherwise called bioethics

F    Theories of Normative Ethics

As earlier mentioned, one of the sets of theories we have in normative ethics is the consequentialist theories of obligation. A theory is said to be consequentialist in orientation if it evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action from the perspective of the consequences or result of the action. Moral philosophers of the consequentialist persuasion have over the years come up with certain consequentialist theory of obligation. They are the following:

1.                   Normative or ethical egoism

2.                   Ethical or normative utilitarianism

3.                   Ethical or normative altruism

F    Normative or ethical egoism

Ethical egoism is the theory that states that what makes an act right or wrong is the function of the benefit or dis-benefit which the act brings about in relation to the welfare of the act-performer. Ethical or normative egoism is of two types; the first one is the individual or specific egoist, the second one is the universal or general egoist.

According to the individual or specific egoist, the duty of all persons is to maximise the good of only one person, that is, himself. However, according to the universal or general egoist, the duty of each person is to maximise his/her own respective good.

One advantage of this consequentialistic or teleological theory of obligation is that people ought to do things that would be beneficial to them either now or in future. To this extent, normative or ethical egoism is ontologically against auto-destruction.

F    Demerits

One of the chief criticisms levelled against the normative egoism position is that it propagates the position of selfish interest only; other people’s interests are normally irrelevant. If a society is to be built on this moral norm, we can see that that society will eventually collapsed simply because there is no common belongingness which brings about social coercion, since what the norm prescribes is nothing but selfish individualism.

F    Normative Utilitarianism

This is yet another teleological theory of moral obligation which is regarded as consequentialist theory of moral evaluation. Ethical utilitarianism or better still, normative utilitarianism is a teleological theory of moral assessment or evaluation which states that the question of rightness or wrongness of human conduct is basically a necessary function, or dependent upon, the consequences of such human conduct. It is normative because it is prescriptive of a norm of social interaction and association. It is utilitarian because it is concerned with the utility or the capacity of the conduct to yield benefit. If the consequences promote the happiness or welfare of the greatest number then, the human conduct is morally right. However, if the reverse is the case, then the conduct is morally wrong.

There are two major kinds of normative utilitarianism. In order words, normative utilitarianism has generated two kinds of understanding of utilitarianism:

1.                   Act utilitarianism

Otherwise called the utility of the act, simply states that an act is morally right if it promotes or leads to the promotion of the greatest good to the greatest number of people in a given society. However, the act is morally wrong if it does not lead to the promotion of the greatest good to the greatest number of the people in a given society.

2.                Rule Utilitarianism

This simply states that an act is morally right if it is in agreement with a moral rule that contributes to the greatest good to the greatest number of people. However, an act is morally wrong if it is in opposition to a moral rule that contributes to the greatest good for the greatest number of the people in a society.

v    Merit

The greatest merit of normative utilitarianism is that it always emphasise the greatest good for the greatest number of people in any given situation.  In order words, it transcends the parochial of circumscribed selfish interest being canvassed by normative egoism. Furthermore, normative utilitarianism favours obedience to moral principles that are promoting the general benefit of the people in any given society.

However, one of the demerits of normative utilitarianism is that it sometimes commits us to doing something which is morally unacceptable; though the consequences may be beneficial to the greatest number in the situation involved. For example, an innocent person may be necessarily punished in other serve as a deterrent to many people. A person might be forced to kill another person in other to promote the general welfare of other people.

F    Normative Altruism

Normative altruism is a teleological theory of moral assessment and evaluation which emphasise that the rightness or wrongness of a moral conduct is a function of the consequences of the act to the other moral agent. Therefore, if the act promotes the interest of the other moral agent, then it is morally right. However, the action is morally wrong if it has a consequences or result that works against the interest of the other moral agent.

v    7/5/10

There are basic features which must be inherent in a moral conduct before we can say it is an altruistic moral conduct. The features are the following:

1.                   The moral conduct must be one that is directed as helping the other moral agent.

2.                   The moral conduct must involve a high risk of sacrifice to the actor or the act performer

3.                   The moral conduct must not be accompanied by any external reward.

4.                   The moral conduct must be voluntary

Merits/Advantages

Having examined the nature of an altruistic moral conduct, it is also apposite to talk briefly about the merits and the demerits of normative altruism. Perhaps the greatest merit/advantage of normative altruism is that it encourages fellow-feeling in a society that is based on this norm. in such a society, people would love one another and these common love would eventually occasioned common belongingness which ultimately leads to social cohesion and progress.

However, one of the criticisms which have been levelled against normative altruism is that it I more an ideal theory than a theory prescriptive of what is generally practicable among normal, rational/moral agents in society. In order words, the point being made by the critics here is that normative altruism specifies what is not common among normal agents in society. Thus they (the critics) submit that normative altruism is more idealistic than humanly practicable.

F    Deontological Theories

Deontological normative theories are theories in normative ethics that mainly go beyond the consequences or results of a moral conduct in its moral evaluation. Over the years, ethicists have come up with different deontological theories. Some of them we shall examine.

1.                   The theory of social mores[1]

This theory states that every society has its own customs; certain ways of acting that are generally practiced for they are socially sanctioned or approved. According to William Graham Summer, a cultural anthropologist, it is mores that make an action right or wrong. The right action is the one that conforms to the mores of the agent’s society; the action that violates the mores is wrong. Those who conform to the mores are approved, praised and sometimes rewarded in obvious or subtle ways. Therefore, the norms in any society serve as standards of what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

Advantage

The greatest advantage of the theory of social mores is that it encourages a conformists’ approach to social behaviour. In order words, it works against anti-social conducts.

Demerits

The problem of the theory of social mores is that the theory sometimes approves of something that is morally wrong though it agrees or conforms to social mores. For instance, there was a time in the Old Calabar in the Eastern part of Nigeria when tins were killed because it was socially approved.

2.                   The law of God and the divine-will theory

Because of the failings of the theory of social mores as the moral standard for evaluation of human conduct, some moral philosophers have moved further to postulate another theory of moral conduct. This is what they have called the law of God or the divine-will theory, which is a system of universal rules of action prescribing certain actions as right and prescribing certain kinds of actions as wrong. Because the theory has a transcendental basis or foundation, it is called a divine-will theory of moral conduct. The Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai is an example of the law of God or representative of the divine-will theory.

Since disobedience of the law is eternally punished and obedience of it is equally eternally rewarded, we feel compelled to obey it so as not to suffer the consequences meted out to those who disobey our omniscience and omnipotent creator.

v    May 14, 2010

·                     Demerit

The chief demerit of the divine-will theory is that it is founded on the belief in the existence of God. Therefore, it may not appeal to an atheist who does not believe in the existence of God in the first instance.

·                     Merit

The chief merit of the divine-will theory is that it firmly supports the foundation of the religious belief in the existence of God.

F    Meta-ethical theories/theories if moral knowledge

Various theories have been postulated within the scope of meta-ethics. About three of them would be examined here.

1.                   Ethical scepticism

The central claim of ethical scepticism is that it is not humanly possible to have moral knowledge of rightness and wrongness. This position of moral scepticism is based on the fact that even among so called moral experts, there is always a disagreement about whether certain actions are morally right or morally wrong. If this is the case, then it simply means that nobody I assured of certainty as far as knowledge is concerned.

·                     Merit

The central advantage of ethical scepticism is that it conforms with the social fact that rational beings, inclusive of experts do disagree with one another in relation to what is right and wrong even in particular cases.

·                     Demerit

Contrary to the above, an ethical scepticist fundamentally fails to understand that as human beings, and of different races, beliefs, etc; we cannot but hold divergent views on some moral matter. However, this is just divergent of opinion not denial of moral knowledge. This disagreement does not fully establish that there is no moral knowledge of rightness or wrongness. Furthermore, there are few cases when a person certainly knows what is morally right from what is morally wrong.

For instance, if a car knocks a 7 year old boy down and the boy is in pain, and I happened to be there at that instant, what the morally action is can be obviously seen. The morally right action on my part at that instant is to the aid of the boy immediately. But, why have I chosen this action as morally right? The answer is that I have chosen it as a morally right action because my helping the boy is likely to relieve him of his pain and perhaps save him from dying.

F    Ethical/moral relativism

This is the theory which asserts that all ethical judgements are not absolute; they are socio-cultural dependent; meaning that they are relative to a given society and culture. In order words, ethical relativist states that no ethical judgement is independent of the belief system of the moral judge, which is the product of his society and culture. What a moral judge holding on to a specific system of belief considers a morally right action may be considered as morally wrong by another moral judge holding another set of beliefs which is the product of his society and culture.

·                     Merits/advantage

One of the strength of ethical relativism is the way it comes to terms with cultural relativism. In order words, a moral judge says something is morally right r wrong depending on what his culture and society says of it. Therefore we can state that an ethical relativist indirectly supports his culture.

·                     Demerits

One of the demerit or weakness of ethical relativism is that the moral judgement of ethical relativist is bound to be personal in nature. Other people may not accept it since no two people views an act the same way, but according to his own submission. The real problem here is that if he forces the other to accept his submission, he has contradicted his basic position.

Yet another weakness is that an ethical relativist fundamentally fails to recognise the fact that there are some ethical statements which hold true to all rational people regardless of race, colour, language, age, etc. An example of this is “Racism is morally wrong”

F    Ethical Universalism

Ethical universalism is an obverse of ethical relativism. The central principle of ethical universalism is absolutism; that is, that ethical terms have the quality of being absolute when they are being used to evaluate human conduct in society.

F    Can lower animals have moral right/could we ascribe moral rights to lower animals?

The significant question has sparked-off a rigorous debate between two schools of thoughts. The anthropocentricists and non-anthropocentricists

The anthropocentricist’s school of thought is human-centred or human-centric in orientation. It espouses a normative theory in environmental ethics that assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (strong sense) or it assigns a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than any non-human things such that the protection or promotion of human interest or all well-being at the expense of the non-human things turns out to be nearly justified (weak sense).

On the contrary, the non-anthropocentricists school of thought avers and assigns intrinsic value to non-human things, as it is enjoyed by human in environmental ethics. A basic subset of non-anthropocentricist’s ethical thinking in environmental ethics is animal right activism.

As given above, the central claim of anthropocentricism is that man is ontologically superior to other forms of life in nature or on earth and that other forms of nature are created for the  use of an. This position derives its support from the ancient thesis, which has two subsets:

1.                  The theological argument

2.                  The philosophical argument.

F    The theological Argument

This argument goes thus: God created man in his own image and gave him the authority to populate the earth as well as dominate it. If we accept the fore-going, then we cannot but also accept the fact that man is superior to other non-human things in nature, and this superiority of man is divinely supported. In view of this, it is completely not in doubt that man is entitled to moral rights, while these moral rights can be denied of other things in nature on the basis of the theological argument.

F    Philosophical Argument

This derives from the Protagorian understanding of man as the measure of all things. The point that is clear from this stance is that if we understand measure to be a judge of what is to be measured, and man is the measure of all things, it logically means that man is the judge of other forms of life; hence, the plausibility of the claim of superiority of man against other forms of life.

Apart from he ancient theses so examined, the traditional understanding of moral right some how supports the ascription of moral rights to only human beings as maintained by some moral philosopher, the traditional account or conception of moral right states that the ascription of rights, duties and obligations are dependent on the possibility of action, presently or at some future time. H. J. McCloskey confirms this by noting that the paradigm possessor of a right is an actor or potential actor, one who can act by doing what he is entitled to do or act, by demand, claiming, requiring what he is entitled to demand, claim or require. Now, since man has ability to act on the basis of his right but animals do not seem to have this ability, it means that man ought to have moral right, while they may be consistently denied of lower animals.

However, the animal rights activists have counter-argued and they have also derived their support for equality of treatment of man and lower animals, form the confines of normative ethics. According to Peter Singer, an animal right activists and philosopher, the basis for equal treatment of man and lower animals is locatable in the capacity for suffering and/ or enjoyment of happiness. If a being is not capable of suffering, or experiencing enjoyment of happiness, there is nothing to be taken into moral account. Therefore, the capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interest at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can meaningfully speak of interest.

Hence, if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into moral consideration. On this bases of this eudemonistic (happiness0 theory of normative ethics, Singer affirms that since both man and lower animals have the capacity to enjoy happiness and suffer pain both groups of entities ought to be given equal moral consideration. In view of this, one could say that moral right should be accorded to lower animals as human beings enjoy in society.

1.                  Explain the central claims of the two schools of thoughts

2.                  Give us the theses that supports anthropocentricists and non-anthropocentricists

3.                  State why you support any of the above claims and why you did not support the other.

---

[1] Mores refers to the customs and habitual practices that a group of people accepts and follow, especially as they reflect moral standards.