Ethics and Ethical Reasoning
What is Ethics?
Ethicsis the philosophical study of morality, a rational examination into people’s moral beliefs and behavior.
In general, philosophy is a discipline that asks – andattempts toanswer – basicquestions about key areas or subjectmatters of human life and about pervasive and significantaspects of experience.To do so, philosophersclarify concepts and examine propositions and beliefs, but their majortask is to analyze and construct arguments.
Ethics, or moral philosophy, is that branch of philosophywhich has morality as its subject matter. Morality is concerned with questions such as “What is the right thing to do?” or “How should we live our lives?”Ethicists, or moral philosophers, usually focus on examining people’s moral judgments and decisions, especially the reasons or justifications they give for their moral positions.
The question “Why should we concern ourselves with moral problems?” hasan obvious answer: We cannot avoid such problems since life iscontinually placing them in our path. We encounter them ingrowing up, in our working life, in raising children, in caring foraged parents, in our relationships with colleagues, loved ones andadversaries, in the opportunities and temptations we are presentedwith.
A word must be said firstabout the specific terms “morality” and “ethics.” Often these terms are used interchangeably. Both terms derive their meaning from the idea of “custom” – thatis, normal behavior. Specifically, “morality” comes from the Latin word moresand “ethics” from the Greek ethos.
Right and Wrong
What makes an action right or wrong? What do we mean whenwe say that someone ought or ought not to do something? If we cannot explain why such things as torture,murder, cruelty, slavery, rape, and theft are wrong, what justificationcan we have for trying to prevent them? Is morality simply amatter of prejudice or can we give good reasons for our moralbeliefs?
When deciding how to act, we are often faced with uncertainties, confusions, and conflicts. Wemay not always know how to act, and we are often faced withsubstantial disagreement about some highlycontentious ethical issues. For example, there is clearly alack of moral consensus with respect to our views on euthanasia,abortion, or our treatment towards non-human animals.
Some people may therefore come to the conclusion that moral judgments arejust “matters of opinion.” They believe that because ethical judgments are essentially subjective, each person’s assessmentof the right thing to do is asgood as anyone else’s.And if all opinions are equally good (orequally bad), no one cangive authoritative advice as to what is right and what iswrong.
The implication of this line of thinking is that morality is seen as simply a matter of personal preference:Ethical judgments are “personal” in the same way that taste is personal. Just as there is no point in arguing about whether pizza is more delicious than chocolate, there is also no objective answer as to whether it is right or wrong to cheat on your spouse. Each person can have his or her own morality, and there is no point criticizing or rationally evaluating anyone’s moral judgments.
However, if you stop to thinkabout it, you will quickly realize that very little ethics, or morality, is left to one’sopinion. Generally accepted rules about rightness and wrongness of actionsare in fact articulated in clear socialprinciples, which are in turn encoded in the laws of our society. We all agree that rape and armed robbery are obviously immoral, and we can safely suppose that all rational people should understand why there are laws forbidding such behavior and there are good justifications in locking up people who disobey them.
Rulesof conduct are necessaryif people are to live together.Every society has rules ofconduct describing what people ought and ought not to do in various situations. Law and morality can be seen as rules that are generally accepted and followed by members of a society for good reasons. Many laws areinstituted to promote welfare (i.e. well-being), resolve conflicts of interest, and promotesocial harmony, and it is no coincidence that morality often serves almost exactly the same purposes.
Ethics, however, may judge thatsome laws are immoral without denying that they have legal authority. There might be laws that allow, or in some cases require, citizens to act in ways that are morally impermissible; for example, laws that enforce racial discrimination or racial segregation. Moreover, some aspects of morality are not covered by law. There are thingsthat many people consider morally wrong and yet there areno laws against them, except in rather special instances. Examplesinclude lying, breaking promises, failing to show gratitude, or beingrude to one’s family members, all of which are (normally)wrong but not illegal.
There are actions, such as jaywalking, which we mayconsider to be justifiably illegal and yet not immoral, and there are actions,such as adultery (i.e. cheating on one’s spouse), which we may consider to be immoral and yet notjustifiably illegal. These examples show that morality is something different from the law.The fact that a law tells us that we are allowed to do something does not settle the question of whether morality gives it the stamp of approval.
Our ethical judgments cannot be just a matter of personal preference. We know, for instance, that moraljudgments are flawed if they are based on misinformation,short-sightedness, bias, or lack ofunderstanding.Our ethical views can be changed byargument and reason. It seemsto make perfectly good sense to try to convince others thatthey might be mistaken in their moral judgments, and we ourselves may likewise adjust our moral beliefs and judgments in response to the views and arguments of others.
Ethics is unlike taste in that it is open to reason. Open-mindedness means that while you have an opinion and good reasons to believe it, you will still listen to the reasoning behind opposing views; and if they show that your reasons turn out not to be good ones, then you are willing to change your mind. Open-mindedness starts with admitting that while you are a thoughtful, caring person, you might have it wrong and want to think hard about the different sides of an issue.
When we are confronted with moral problems, we should strive tomake informed decisions based on the bestevidence, and then act accordingly, even thoughthe best evidence will never guarantee complete certainty.To make informed decisions, we shouldtry tounderstand the relevant issues, take a longer-termperspective, set aside irrational biases, andinculcate a willingness to subject our tentativeconclusions to the criticisms of others.
All in all, we should approach ethical disagreements in a way that is more likely to generate thoughtful discussion and open-minded consideration of alternative views. We need to make sure that there is room for thoughtful, caring people to disagree, but this does not imply that moral judgment is simply a matter of subjective opinion. The key, as we shall see, is to understand the reasoning that people employ in ethical decision-making.
Ethical Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that our own opinion must be correct, so there is no need to consider the argument on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational: They may be nothing but the products of ignorance, prejudice or misunderstanding.
If we are to make progresstowards establishing consensusabout various ethical issues, not only do we need to ask ourselveswhywe think certain actions are right and other actionsare wrong, we also need to construct arguments and explain our reasoning to others. It is especially important to understand and appreciate alternative viewpoints and give due consideration to perspectives that are different from our own. When there is a clash of opinions over an issue, we should weigh the factsand the reasoning process behind the differentviews to determine the stronger line ofthinking.
Ethics is, first and foremost, a form of rational inquiry. In making moral decisions, we are concerned not only with what actions are morally right and wrong, but what makes these actions morally right or wrong.As philosopher James Rachels reminds us, “The morally right thing to do, in any circumstance, is determined by what there are the best reasons for doing.”
It is important to know how to reason well in thinkingabout ethical matters. To make informed judgments and decisions, we have to master the skills of critical thinking, moral reasoning, and constructing sound arguments.In dealing with moral issues, good reasoning skill is necessary because we are expected to be able to evaluate the arguments of others and put forward arguments of our own.
An argument is a connected series of statements in which premises (i.e. reasons or evidence) are offered in support a particular conclusion.Premises are reasons or evidence offered to support an assertion, andthe conclusion is the assertion that the premises attempt to support. The premises and conclusion together make up an argument.Reasoning is the act of drawing (or deriving) a conclusion from a premise or a set of premises.
“It is likely that David took the money, since the money disappeared at the same time as David left, and he had stolen others’ money before.”
In the example above, “the money disappeared at the same time as David left” and “he had stolen others’ money before” are premises; “David took the money” is the conclusion.
A soundargument is a good argument. It has a valid form in which the conclusionfollows logically from the premises, and thepremises given for the conclusion aretrue. In contrast, a bad or unsound argument relies on false premises, or invalid reasoning, or both. Generally speaking, arguments are either valid (i.e. logical) or invalid (i.e. illogical), but a further distinction can be drawn between “deductive arguments” and “inductive arguments.”
In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. That is to say, if we accept all the premises, we must also accept the conclusion because the conclusion follows logically (or necessarily) from the premises.
P1All mammals are mortal.
P2All humans are mammals.
CTherefore, all humans are mortal.
The above is an example of a valid deductive argument: The conclusion follows logically from the premises. It is also a sound argument (whose premises and conclusion are true).
Next, let us consider another example:
P1All dogs are mammals.
P2All horses are mammals.
CTherefore, all horses are dogs.
The above is an invaliddeductive argument, because its conclusion does not follow from the premises. Although the premises are true, the conclusion is false. Because of an error in reasoning, a false conclusion has been drawn, and so the argument as a whole is invalid or illogical.
If deductive reasoning can be defined as the process of reasoning from one or more premises to reach a logically certain conclusion, inductive reasoning can be regarded as an act of deriving a general conclusion from particular facts or observations. Aninductive argument is onewhose premises make the conclusion seem probable yetstill not necessarily true. Consider the following:
“My little brother has many of the symptoms of pneumonia, such as fever, cough, headaches and shortness of breath. So it is likely that he has the disease.”
The above can be rewritten into a series of premises that build to a conclusion:
P1My brother has a fever.
P2My brother is coughing.
P3My brother has a headache.
P4My brother has shortness of breath.
CMy brother has pneumonia.
In this example, it is quite clear that even if all the premises are true, we still cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion. We cannot draw a definite conclusion from the observation that many of the symptoms of pneumonia are present.Even though it is highly probable that my little brother has come down with pneumonia,the evidence is insufficient to buttress the claim thathe really has the disease.
When we evaluate our own or other people’s arguments, we should consider questions such as: (1) Is the evidence relevant? (2) Are the facts correct? (3) Is the reasoning logical? (4) Are there any counterarguments? Generally speaking, good arguments are relevant, valid, and well supported by evidence (i.e. facts, observations, statistics and examples). Much of the skill of moral reasoning consists in discerning the difference between good and bad arguments.
One of the purposes of studying ethics is to learn how to think critically and develop skills of reasoning and argumentation. When dealing with ethical issues, not only should we familiarize ourselves with different viewpoints, we should also be able to explain why we agree or disagree with those viewpoints.
If we want tohave an informed opinionabout an issue, we have to examine it from all possible angles.We must be open to the viewpoints of others, and be willing to exchange ideas with them. It is especially important that before drawing any conclusion of our own, we have to consider carefully the arguments that other people make to support their views. Critical thinking can be seen as the skills of correctly evaluating arguments made by others and constructingreasoned arguments to support our own standpoint.
To think critically and reason well about ethical issues, we have to (1) understand the background or situation; (2) think open-mindedly and raise relevant questions; (3) gather and evaluate information; (4) examine different viewpoints and their supporting arguments; (5) develop a standpoint of our own; and (6) construct reasoned arguments to support our own view.
Fallacies
Our ethical judgments should be reasonable, logical and consistent. In constructing argument, we should make every effort to avoid errors and inconsistencies.
Fallacies are errors or defects that occur in arguments. Fallacious arguments may seem persuasive on the surface, but they cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason because they are logically unsound.Arguments can go wrong in an indefinite number of ways, and all we can do isto always stay alert to the possibility of errors. Because there are hundreds of different types of fallacies, we will focus on just four of those:
(1) An argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed.A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy. It is the mistake of overlooking the dissimilarities between things. Very often, two things may have superficial similarities, but they are not exactly the same. Consider the following:
“Bob must be a lazy person because his brother Jack is very lazy.”
The above example is likely to be a case of “false analogy”because having the same biological parents may have little or nothing to do with the character trait of “laziness.”
(2) Another common fallacy or error in reasoning is called begging the questionor arguing in a circle. For example, if you want to argue that abortion should be permitted, you need to explain why this is so. It is not enough to say that abortion should be permitted because women should be allowed to make choices. You are begging the question because you are merely reiterating that abortion should be permitted. Further argument or information would be necessary to explain why women should be allowed to choose abortion.
(3) The straw man fallacy is an error in reasoning that we commit when we attribute a poorly reasoned argument to someone who never actually made that argument. Here is an example:
“The Buddha thinks that desire is the root cause of suffering. The best way to extinguish one’s desire is to commit suicide. Therefore, the Buddha encourages people to commit suicide.”
When someone criticizes Buddhism for encouraging people to commit suicide, they are attacking a straw man because the Buddha never says anything to that effect. The Buddha does not think that committing suicide is the best or only way to extinguish desire.
(4) Slippery slope arguments are very common in applied ethics. They usually involve a prediction that some serious avoidable harm will follow if some new policy is introduced or some legal, social or political reform is carried out. And once the Pandora’s box is open, there is no way of preventing the dreadful consequences. Consider the following:
“If we legalize soccer betting, more people will be addicted to gambling. As the number of pathological gamblers increases, there will be more crime and other social problems. We must think twice before allowing this to happen.”
Whether the above argument is sound or not depends to a very large extent on the availability of evidence. If there is insufficient evidence supporting the slippery slope effect, then the argument can be seen as unsound or fallacious.
Principles and Theories
Moral principles are general rules or standards for evaluating conduct. Some moral principles, such as the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”) and the principle of formal equality (“Equals ought to be treated equally.”) are often regarded as self-evident in the sense that no proof or justification is necessary for people to accept them – there is no reason whatsoever not to accept them.