UNIT 3 ETHICS What is Ethics Introduction Ethics

UNIT 3: ETHICS What is Ethics?

Introduction Ethics is the study of __________. It is ___________________ __, for many people do not act ethically. Ethics looks at what you should do and, more philosophically, why you should do it. Ethics is about obligations: it is the study of "should-ing".

Ethics Ethical rules are the foundation of all rules pertaining to how one should act. They can be ____________, which generally reflect beliefs about what actions should be permitted and what should be prohibited. They can be __________, such as whether you should lie to your parents about how late you were out last night. Most professions have a code of ethics to govern how members should behave in their professional relationships. (Ontario College of

Ethics is the most applicable of the fields of Philosophy to everyday life, for ethical theories are _____________________________________. Ethics is in the news every day: _____________________________________ __________________

Ethics and Morals The terms 'ethics' and 'morals' are often used synonymously. Someone who is ethical behaves morally and someone with a strong sense of morality is ethical. However, there is a difference between the terms.

. For example, in the Bible, the Ten Commandments provide a simple moral system providing guidance for behaviour. It tells you, in broad terms, how to act.

The study of ethics is often referred to as Moral Philosophy. However, some philosophers argue each is distinct and refers to different areas of behaviour. In this view, _____________________________________.

For example, a study of morals would tell you what is proper behaviour regarding relations with the opposite sex, in areas such as marriage, fidelity, child-raising. Morals would provide specific directions to tell you what to do. In this sense, it is similar to what we will refer to in this unit as Ethical Normative Systems.

Ethics, on the other hand, _____________________________________ ______. Ethics looks at theoretical nature of morality, rather than specific examples of how one should act.

For example, while a system of morals based on the Ten Commandments would answer the question, "Is it wrong to steal? " the question raised by ethics would be "What is the basis of the system described in the Ten Commandments? " and "Why is something considered moral or immoral? " In this view, the difference between ethics and morals is the difference between theory and application. Using this definition, ethics is similar to what we will refer to in this unit as meta-ethics.

In this unit, the effort has been made to use the most commonly accepted names for concepts, which often mean that "moral" and "ethical" end up being used interchangeably.

Areas of Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is typically divided by philosophers into three main areas. As the concepts are all closely related, there is considerable crossover.

1. Meta-ethics The term "meta" means above or beyond. Meta -ethics is the study not of what is right and wrong, but of the _________________. It is the study of where ethical principles come from. Meta-ethics examines questions such as: • • • Is God the ultimate source of moral guidance? ? Are ethical rules subjective or objective? A theory of Meta-ethics allows for the development of a

2. Normative Ethics This branch of Ethics looks at the particular 'shalls' and 'shall nots' that one needs to guide their life. Normative theories are based on broad metaethical principles, such as "God is the ultimate moral authority". Based on this foundation, a series of norms, or appropriate behaviours, develops. Normative Ethics looks at particular questions of: • • How do we determine what to do and how to act? ? Normative Ethics looks at ____________.

3. Applied Ethics takes theories of morality and ___________________. For example: • • Is unauthorised computer file-sharing unethical? Do we have moral obligations to the environment? This is "ethics in the real world", dealing with particular social and political issues. The topics addressed in Applied Ethics change over time, whereas the questions of metaethics and normative ethics tend to be more fundamental.

Some Ethical Terms 1. ___________ You can make a right turn and go the wrong way and still have done nothing right or wrong, in an ethical sense. In ethics, right is defined as the act that you should do, according to the rules of normative ethics. Wrong, then, is the act you should not do, the opposite of right.

2. __________ A good act is one that should be done and a bad act is one that should not be done. But how is this different from right and wrong? This is a confusing question and some philosophers argue there is no difference between these sets of terms. On the other hand, some would argue that right actions will bring about good, while wrong actions will not. The good is thus an end and right is a means to it: the right thing to do is the act that brings about the good. It is the same as what you

However, sometimes acts usually considered wrong can be considered good. For example, killing is wrong, and in normal society it is severely punished. But when Canada fielded large armies in both World Wars, Canadian soldiers killed enemy troops and civilians. Some of them did it so efficiently they received high praise, medals, and were honoured by having streets and schools named after them. Clearly then, killing is wrong only some of the time, and can be deemed to be not wrong in some contexts.

Can a wrong act bring about a good result? Likewise, can a right action bring about bad results? Or do acts need to be taken in isolation, rather than in terms of their outcomes?

3. _______________ These terms describe people or actions. A moral person acts according to the ethical norms of society, behaving in the way that one should behave. A moral act is one that is in accordance with these norms. � For example, a person who is honest is considered moral; the act of being honest is a moral act. Immoral means the opposite.

Amoral, on the other hand, concerns acts or people not covered by moral norms. � For example, stealing candy from a baby would be considered immoral, while stealing candy from a squirrel would not be. � In fact, the act of taking candy from a squirrel would not even be considered stealing in the normal sense of the term. What is the difference? Babies are within the "moral community" and people owe them moral obligations, whereas squirrels are not owed obligations. Acts towards them are considered neither moral nor immoral.

4. ___________________ ___ The 'moral community' is defined as the group to which you owe duties and obligations, which are the "shoulds" of ethical behaviour. � For example, most people would agree that the moral community includes other humans, and that we have an obligation to act morally towards them, not to lie or steal from them.

But consider animals: some would argue that animals should be members of the human 'moral community' and are owed obligations. This is especially the case with pet animals. � For example, do you have moral obligations to your pet dog? Would it be immoral to tell your dog a lie or to steal from her in the same way it would be immoral to do the same to your brother? If you feel that lying to your dog is immoral, then perhaps you are including your dog in the group to whom you owe moral obligations.

On the other hand, some ethical normative systems exclude humans who do not belong to the group that follows the system, thus putting these humans outside the moral community. � An example would be societies practising slavery. In this case, human slaves are regarded as being outside the moral community. � Some religious ethical systems set out different moral obligations owed to believers and nonbelievers.

5. ______________ is acting to benefit one's self. It is also known as 'self-interest' or 'selfishness'. An egoist always looks out for him or herself. The opposite of this is altruism, or 'selflessness'. _______ behaviour takes into account the needs of others and an altruist might sacrifice him or herself to help others.

An example of this is someone jumping into an ice -choked river to save a child who is drowning. Some philosophers argue that people are by nature egoistic, even if they appear to be acting altruistically. In this example, it could be argued that the rescuer was behaving egoistically, and their motive was an expectation that they would receive praise for their heroism, or, if not that, a knowledge that if they didn't attempt the rescue they would feel guilty and awful forever. On the other hand, maybe they were acting altruistically. Some philosophers argue that altruism is a defining characteristic of being human and that helping others is the right thing to

6. _____________ Codes of law and codes of ethics both aim to provide guidance for one's behaviour. However, law is the attempt to codify and enforce moral behaviour, and often includes exceptions to the rule. The law will be concerned if you physically harm your little brother without good cause, but not if you scare the day lights out of him with that story about the monster under his bed. Morally, both acts are wrong. Lying is a central concern of Ethics, but usually not of law.

In addition, law is a tool for social policy. As such, laws change over time in response to changing social norms. For example, in Canada, women were not considered legal 'persons' in the full sense until 1929. In Ontario, slavery was legal until 1833 with the passing of the 1833 British Imperial Act. In 1968 the federal government of Canada decriminalized homosexual behaviour between adults. � Thus it can be seen that laws change, but when a law

_______ are those that are fair to everyone. ______ by comparison are those that are not fair or right, in the ethical sense. If slavery is legal, does that make it right? The Holocaust was legal, but did that make it right? Many would argue that we have the right—even the obligation—of fighting unjust laws. One of America's best known 19 th century writers, Henry David Thoreau, argued there were times when people needed to resist the law and choose a course of civil disobedience. Thus it was morally right to disobey the government under

Is God Necessary for Morality? Many would argue that without a Supreme Being, there can be no morality. This was famously expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, where two characters argue about the possibility of an atheistic morality. The conclusion is that God is needed for morality to exist, for without God 'everything is permitted'.

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth? " (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov, Toronto: Penguin Classics, 2003, p 227. )

The formulation above basically makes a case that the existence of evil in our world is incompatible with the existence of God. Many would agree that a Divinity is needed to guarantee moral behaviour, through a system of punishment and reward in the Afterlife.

In Christianity, those who behave morally can hope to be rewarded with a place in Heaven. For those who behave immorally, their place will be somewhat warmer and less pleasant. Other religions have a different system of reward and punishment, but the basic principle is the same.

For example, in the karmic religions, good behaviour is rewarded with a higher reincarnation than bad behaviour. For those who believe in a Supreme Being and the reward/punishment system, the question, "Why behave morally? " can be answered in two ways: Because that is what the Supreme Being wants and that is how you have been made, and 2. if you don't, you'll be sorry! 1.

But what of people who don't believe in God? Can an atheist behave morally - will the term even have any meaning? Of course there are many atheists who behave in ways that most would recognize as moral. But what makes them behave? Or what of those who believe in a Supreme Being, but not in the system of reward and punishment or the Afterlife?

Both groups could argue for a morality based on Humanist values, which takes into account the relations between members of society, without reference to the Divine. Many ethical systems, such as Confucianism, Aristotleanism, or Utilitarianism fall into this category, and God is irrelevant to the question, "Why behave morally".