Dr. Peale’s Essay On Ethics
From: Philosophy 307- Contemporary Moral Issues and Ethical Perspectives
Longwood University
- I.Ethics, A summary Outline
- A.A Definition Of Ethics
- B.Philosophical Starting Point
- C.The Standards Of Morality And Ethics
- i.Moral Standards
- ii.Ethical Standards
- II.The Theories Of Ethics
- A.Consequentialists Theories
- i.Theories Of Ends Or Consequences Good In Themselves
- ii.The Theories
- 1.Ethical Egoism (EE) And Psychological Egoism (PE)
- 2.Utilitarianism
- B.Theories, Non-Consequentialist And Teleological
- i.Plato’s Ethics
- ii.Aristotle’s Ethics
- iii.Christian Ethics
- C.Non-Consequentialist Theories (Deontological)
- i. Act Deontological Theories
- ii.Rule Deontological Theories (Kant)
D. Virtue Ethics
- I.Ethics, A Summary Outline
A. A Definition Of Ethics
Normative Ethics is that branch of Philosophy which Provides standards, theories or principles to guide the behavior or action of persons towards doing what people ought to do or what it is right to do. It helps us decide in any given specific situation, what is the right or wrong thing to or what we ought or ought not to do.
B. Philosophical Starting Point
In my definition of normative ethics, I stated that philosophy provides standards or theories or principles to guide our behavior. Below I will spell out just what I mean by such standards or principles.
First I want to ask why do we need moral standards or ethical rules, principles or theories anyway?
Some people may believe that moral or ethical judgments are merely matters of opinion, such as personal feelings or tastes. Other people may believe that such judgments have a certainty or are self-evidently true.
There are arguments to show that both these beliefs are wrong to which I will some come.
Since mere opinion won’t do, or since there aren’t any self-evidently true moral judgments, what is needed is some middle ground. This is provided by identifying the bases or standards on which to ground moral judgments. What we need in ethics is the point of view that, on a certain basis (es), it may be argued that someone is doing what they should (or should not do) or ought (or ought not) to do. We will consider the bases or standards below in Section II. C.
Take the people who believe that moral judgments are merely a matter of opinion. Some of these people may be called “subjectivists,” by which view Rachels means the view “that our moral opinions, are based on our feelings, and nothing more. On this view [he writes] there is no such thing as ‘objective’ right or wrong.” (Rachels, EMP, p.31)
An example: I suffer from insomnia. I feel that killing octogenarians for sport in the middle of the night during the time that I cannot sleep is fun and ok, so for me that behavior is right, for my judgment that it is morally permissible is based on my feelings and nothing more. That is my personal opinion.
This view reduces moral judgments to matters of personal private feelings and matters of taste.
Consider the following arguments against subjectivism:
1. If subjectivism were true, then there would be no such phenomena as
(1)(1)genuine moral or ethical agreement or disagreement;
(2)(2)moral or ethical progress or retrogression;
(3)(3)moral or ethical exemplars;
(4)(4)most tellingly, no standards to distinguish between right and wrong;
2. But there are examples of (1)-(4);
3. Therefore, Subjectivism, as defined, is not true and is not a satisfactory theory of morality or ethics.
People may believe that moral judgments have a certainty or are self-evidently true.
Against this point of view is the claim that for any moral or ethical judgment, based on any rule, principle or theory of ethics or any moral custom in culture, there are justifiable exceptions.
I want to argue that in any moral problem there is a dilemma. A moral dilemma, by definition, is a dilemmic situation in which there is more than one way to go towards resolving it, and this means that any one duty to go any one way is not self-evident or certain.
This point can be pinned down more firmly by taking on Kant, and this isn’t done until Section II. C. 2 {ii}.
On the basis of these arguments we may conclude that it is not the case either that moral or ethical judgments are merely matters of opinion or taste, based on feeling and nothing more, nor is it the case that moral or ethical judgments have a certainty or are absolute or self-evident.
Therefore, we must take a middle position and have a system of bases or standards for grounding moral or ethical judgments.
C.The Standards Of Morality And Ethics
These bases are found in the standard, acceptable customary patterns of behavior in one’s culture or sub-culture, or they are found in the rules, principles and theories of ethics. Moral philosophy, in the main is concerned with arguments between the standards on which moral judgments are based.
- 1.Moral Standards
“Morality” or morals come from the term “mores,” which means customs in a culture. So “morality” and “morals” are cultural terms.
One of the standards in the field, therefore are the customary acceptable standards in a culture or sub-culture. We may define being moral or practicing morality as follows: To be moral or to practice morality is to act in accordance with customary acceptable standards in a culture or sub-culture. To act immorally is to act in a way contrary to such customary acceptable standards.
Morality is a social institution “something that is coordinate with but different from art, science, law, convention or religion, though it may be related to them.” (Frankena, Ethics, p.6)
Morality is social in its origin. “It is an instrument of society as a whole for the guidance and regulation of groups.” (Frankena, Ethics, p. )
- 2.Ethical Standards
We need another normative discipline with standards other than moral standards to guide our behavior, and this for the reason that we all know that we often do what is customary and acceptable in a culture but which we know to be wrong. Besides, we often need to criticize and alter moral standards towards what we consider the betterment of persons and social institutions.
In other words to do what is moral is not necessarily to do what is right.
As an example to pin the point down, consider the case of the Montgomery Alabama bus boycott of 1955-1956. Prior to the boycott it was moral, based on the acceptable customs in that culture at that place and time, that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. The black community, in effect argued that such moral standards violated an ethical principle, the principle of (egalitarian) justice, according to which every person as a person is equal and should be treated as such. Or simply, treat equal people equally. With regard to bus riding behavior blacks and whites should be treated equally, for the color of one’s skin is ethically irrelevant, but was morally relevant, to where a person should sit on a bus.
So we may define being ethical as follows: To be ethical is to act according to principles, which are freely and rationally constructed by the agent, and which are not necessarily taken from the culture.
I want to argue that these principles come from the human mind, which freely and rationally thinks them up to guide human behavior towards what is right, especially where the rightness of the action is contrary to prevailing moral customs.
This is a convenient point to introduce cultural relativism, for a person taking this point of view may well raise objections to this line of thought.
Cultural Relativism affirms the following six propositions:
“1.Different societies have different moral codes.
2.There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3.The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4.There is no ‘universal truth’ in ethics- that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.
5.The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6.It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards the practices of other cultures.”
(Rachels, EMP, p. 18)
The cultural relativist, so defined, subscribes to “the cultural differences argument,” which goes as follows:
“(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective ‘truth’ in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.”
(Rachels, EMP, p.19)
Rachels thinks that the trouble with the cultural differences argument “is that the conclusion does not really follow from the premise- that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.” (Rachels, EMP, p.19)
Consider the case of the Chinese on the issue of infanticide. There are long-standing cultural traditions in China that families prefer boy babies to girl babies. Males come ahead of females in Confucian thought. Family lines are carried in the names of the boy babies not the girls. There is a special relationship the man has with the land, e.g. in Wang Lung in Pearl Buck’s The Good Earth. Also boys and men work better on the land than the girls do, and boys are not as likely to marry and to go away from the family home. Presently it has been realized that there simply are too many Chinese people, and everyone recognizes that. The government has tried to deal with this situation by setting up the one child per family requirement, which is enforced by stiff fines and other penalties.
Say you are like me in being enamored of the Chinese, of speaking the language and valuing the culture. Say you are in China living with a Chinese family that you have come to care for and who care for you. Say this family has just borne a girl baby, and one night you hear them talking about drowning the infant the next night. Is there anything you can and ought to say?
If you are a cultural relativist and are one in a strict sense there isn’t any judgment you should make upon their behavior. But perhaps there is something you ought to say. Here is where the distinction between morality and ethics comes to play.
You could say that you understand and value the cultural traditions of the Chinese as explained, but you also value human life. You could produce a rational principle, the right to life, that the life of the baby girl is valuable, and given normal development will actualize greater value as she matures.
You could argue that infanticide is wrong because it violates a principle, the principle of the right to life.
Another example: Why should a professor at Longwood not play favorites with his or her students. Perhaps the professor could do a bit of research and determine that playing favorites was customary and acceptable among Longwood faculty and therefore moral. But such behavior could still be judged wrong on an ethical basis, for that would violate the principle of egalitarian justice, that equal people (the students) should be treated equally.
II.The Theories of Ethics
So, the need of ethical rules, principles and theories which contain them, has been established. The next task is to generate a system of such rules, principles and theories to maximize useable standards for the making of ethical judgments.
A.Consequentialist Theories
Perhaps the best most natural place to begin is with consequentialist theories. Here one begins by appealing to the consequences of an action to determine whether that action is right or ought to be done.
Now what is there in general in the consequences of any action, which could justifiably stand to make that action right or obligatory? What ends or consequences are good in themselves, and not just ends which are instrumental towards the furthering of other ends and so on infinitum?
1.Theories of Ends or Consequences Good in themselves
(1)(1)Happiness
- a.balance of pleasure over pains
- b.Aristotelian happiness
- c.Epicurean happiness
- d.Stoic Happiness
- e.Christian happiness
- f.Happiness as a psychological- spiritual state of well being.
(2)The Good Will (Kant), Power (Machiavelli),
Knowledge (Plato)
Let us concentrate on happiness. Why happiness? As the argument goes, happiness is the one good or end in itself that we human beings desire for its own sake. All other things we desired are desired for the sake of happiness, e.g. the good will, power, knowledge, not to mention health, enough money to be comfortable etc. Only happiness is desired for its own sake.
Next we have to have a definition of “happiness;” I opt for definition f; the merits and demerits of the various kinds of happiness will be considered in the criticisms of the various theories.
2.Ethical Theories
(1) Ethical Egoism (EE) and Psychological Egoism (PE)
“According to Ethical Egoism, thee is only one ultimate principle of conduct, the principle of self-interest, and this principles sums up all of one’s natural duties and obligations.” (Rachels, EMP, p.77) The one and only one basic obligation is to bring happiness to oneself.
This view is based on a psychological doctrine, on PE, which says that the one and only one basic motivation or aim in behavior is to bring happiness to oneself.
Putting EE and PE together we may say that one ought to do what is in one’s own best interest largely because one does do that anyway. Or we ought to do what we do anyway. This is much more convenient than Christian ethics, for example, which argues that we ought to do what we don’t do anyway!
One argument seems to point to a strength in EE:
“(1)We ought to do whatever will promote the best interest of everyone alike.
(2)(2)The interests of everyone will best se promoted if each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our own interests exclusively.
(3)(3)Therefore, each of us should adopt the policy of pursuing our own interests exclusively.
Critique of EE and PE: EE would be undermined if PE were found to be false. One argument to show that it is false is to describe believable cases where there are genuinely altruistic motivations or aims, say the actions of one best friend or one true loved one to the friend or beloved. Another argument against PE is to show, as Rachels tries to do, that “the deepest error in psychological egoism, is that “once accepted, everything may be interpreted to support it.” (Rachels, EMP, pp.72-73) In other words, the hypothesis is untestable and therefore, irrefutable.
(2)(2)Utilitarianism (U)
If we’re not satisfied with Egoisms we could turn to Utilitarianism, the doctrine which holds that one ought to do that which maximizes utility or ought to do the act which promotes “ the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” or simply produces the greatest amount of happiness altogether.
Utilitarianism is that “theory proposed by David Hume (1711-1776) but given definitive formulation by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)…” (Rachels, EMT p. 90)
This theory subscribes to the Principle of Utility, which quoted from Bentham is as follows:
“By the Principle of Utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question; or what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.” (Rachels, EMP, p.91; the quotation is from Bentham’s The Principles of Morals and Legislation)
“Classical Utilitarianism- the theory defended by Bentham and Mill- can be summarized in three propositions:
First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely on the virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. Right actions are, simply, those that have the best consequences.
Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Thus right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness.
Third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. Each person’s welfare is equally important. As Mill puts it in his Utilitarianism, the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” (Rachels, EMP, pp. 102-103)
Try this for an analogy for the utilitarian moral agent: he or she is like an outboard motor boat skimming rapidly across a calm lake. The boat is the moral agent; the wake is the happiness created in the consequences of the behavior of the boat, and the boat is not in the wake.
One merit of this view is that with people practicing utilitarianism more people would be positively affected by the happiness wakes of more people, and thus the world would be a happier place.
An interesting and controversial issue: Utilitarianism implies that we have a duty to concern ourselves with the happiness of other people. Do we have such a duty?
Note that the utilitarian is taking issue with the second premise of the argument presented for EE on page 7, that the interests of everyone will best be promoted if each of us adopts the policy of pursuing our own interests exclusively.
The version of utilitarianism here considered is often referred to as Act Utilitarianism (AU). According to this doctrine the moral agent considers each act individually and calculates whether the performing of that act will promote the most happiness.
Critique of Utilitarianism: There are a number of problems, in fact there are such a large number and a wide variety of problems that one wonders if the theory can survive.
There are problems concerning the utilitarian calculation of the amount of happiness produced in, say, course-of-action #1, vs. course-of-action #2.
What the utilitarian typically does is to add up the units of happiness produced by #1 vs. #2 and then opts for the course of action which produces the greater number of such units of happiness.