Chapter 1: Ethics Defined
What Ethics Is—And Isn’t
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, and the term “philosophy” literally stems from two Greek words: “Philia” (love) and “Sophia” (wisdom), meaning the love of wisdom. If you think of philosophy as the general activity of thinking deeply about life, you’re not far off the mark. Philosophy is traditionally divided into three major branches: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Axiology.
Metaphysics investigates the nature of reality.
Epistemology focuses on the philosophical study of knowledge and related concepts like truth and certainty.
Axiology is concerned with the general study of value and can be further subdivided into Aesthetics and Ethics.
Aesthetics explores the concepts and values involved in art, the artistic enterprise, and art appreciation, such as beauty, ways of seeing, and creativity. Ethics, or Moral Philosophy, is the subdivision of Axiology that we will concentrate on.
If philosophy is the general activity of thinking deeply about life, then ethics can be seen as the activity of thinking deeply about a specific area of human experience—the moral sphere or moral dimension of human life.
Questions of ethics include examining the nature of moral value, the good life, and concepts such as right, wrong, the morally obligatory, the morally permissible, the morally impermissible, praise, blame, and how these ideas relate to moral issues of human conduct, character, and relationships.
Although the study of ethics can reach levels that are theoretically complex and esoteric, our aim will be decidedly practical—providing guidance on moral matters in the hopes of contributing to the quality of human life, both our own and that of others.
Ethics: What It Is Not
In addition to understanding what ethics is, it’s crucial to clarify what ethics is not. In this class, we will not be in the business of judging persons, although we will evaluate various modes of conduct, character, and forms of life. Ethics is not the same as opinions, feelings, or even conscience. It need not be religious, nor is it the same as following the law. Contrary to popular belief, ethics is not synonymous with adhering to culturally accepted norms, familial upbringing, customs, or traditions. However, ethics is not intrinsically opposed to these other possible sources of guidance in moral matters.
It is also essential to differentiate ethical inquiry from scientific inquiry. Any inquiry deserving the name “science” is primarily a descriptive enterprise. The consequences of scientific endeavors (whether natural, social, or behavioral) on the human condition are profound and virtually inestimable. Nevertheless, sciences, as descriptive enterprises, remain silent on normative questions about meaning, value, and purpose. For all their efficacy, sciences are impotent when it comes to shedding light on ethical problems. The sciences will forever remain silent on questions about the moral life.
Practice Activity
Please read each multiple-choice question carefully and select the best answer from the options provided.
The Role of Reason in Ethics
If the primary aim of ethics is to provide guidance in moral matters, the principal method of ethics is reason. In ethics, we examine ethical claims, beliefs, judgments, and practices through the lens of reason. Ideally, ethics encourages us to subscribe to and endorse ideas and practices that can be supported with “good” reasons.
“Good” reasons hinge on ideas that are true or, at the very least, make sense and align with the other beliefs we regard as acceptable. On the other hand, reasons considered “less than good” include ideas that are false, unacceptable, unreasonable to believe, or in conflict with the other beliefs we hold as true or, at least, “acceptable.”
Does this imply that, once we have studied ethics, we should devalue more traditional sources of moral guidance, such as wisdom passed down from our elders and authorities, our conscience, religious upbringing, or customs?
Absolutely not! Just as using a GPS (Global Positioning System) navigation system to find our way around town does not prevent us from employing other means of seeking direction—like using a map, checking MapQuest, consulting a compass, or simply asking someone for directions—there is no contradiction in practicing ethics while also recognizing the importance and value of these other sources of moral guidance.
While ethics never promises to provide us with the absolute truth about moral matters, it can help us evaluate our ethical ideas by comparing them with others to see if they align. Philosophical thinking can help us uncover and discover contradictions and tensions in and among our ideas, which likely indicates that something is (probably) wrong.
Isn’t It All Relative? – The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
Before we begin our study of ethics, it’s important to pause and consider two challenges to ethics. The first challenge is that of ethical relativism. According to this view, there are no universal or absolute moral truths. Nothing is intrinsically [morally] good or [morally] bad, [morally] right or [morally] wrong, in and of itself. Instead, concepts such as good, bad, right, and wrong are relative to particular individuals and/or their societies.
It seems undeniable that cultures differ in a multitude of ways. People in diverse cultures—and even within the same culture—hold diverse views about virtually everything, including morality. If cultural relativism is correct, doesn’t that prove that morality is relative as well? And if morality is relative, then it seems to follow that the philosophical study of ethics is, ultimately, “much ado about nothing.”
Consider what the philosopher James Rachels had to say in response to this challenge:
“The fact that different societies have different moral codes proves nothing. There is also disagreement from society to society about scientific matters: in some cultures, people believe that the earth is flat, and that evil spirits cause disease. We do not, on that account, conclude that there is no truth in geography or in medicine. Instead, we conclude that in some cultures, people are better informed than others. Similarly, disagreement in ethics might signal nothing more than that some people are less enlightened than others. At the very least, the fact of disagreement does not, by itself, entail that truth does not exist. Why should we assume that, if ethical truth exists, everyone must know it?”
Does Ethics Demand “One Thought Too Many?” – The Challenge of Over-Thinking Things
Another possible challenge to ethics is the accusation that philosophizing about morality leads to overthinking. In other words, does the whole business of moral philosophizing demand “one thought too many?”
In his book One World, Peter Singer, a professor of philosophy at Princeton, addresses this challenge by examining a critique offered by Bernard Williams. Williams uses the example of visiting a friend in the hospital to illustrate his point. According to Williams, we should visit our sick friend because he is our friend and is in the hospital, not because we’ve engaged in some abstract moral reasoning and concluded that morality requires us to visit our ailing friend.
Singer responds by arguing that Williams’ objection would have some force if it were raised against the claim that we should be engaged in moral philosophizing while operating at the “everyday” level—such as when visiting our sick friend in the hospital. Instead, Singer argues, moral philosophizing occurs at a second, “critical” level. He expands on this point by adding:
“But if we are philosophers, there should be times when we reflect critically on our intuitions—indeed, not only philosophers, but all thoughtful people, should do this. If we simply accept our feelings without the kind of extra reflection we have just been engaged in, we would not be able to decide which of our intuitive inclinations to endorse and support and which to oppose… the fact that intuitive responses are widely held is not evidence that they are justified. They are not rational insights into a realm of moral truth.”
If either of these challenges to ethics were legitimate, they would pose a serious threat to the value of moral philosophy. But they aren’t, and they don’t.
Questions for Discussion: Diversity and Morality
Take a moment to reflect on the following discussion questions. Consider the different perspectives involved and think critically about the ethical implications. As you formulate your thoughts, try to identify the key values and principles that influence your stance on each question.
- The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 granted protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities, similar to those initiated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. Do you believe that the Americans with Disabilities Act indicates a greater alignment of our civil laws with the ideals and values of justice and morality, or does this legislation merely reflect a change in the laws of our land and/or the sentiments of our society at large?
- Consider the case of Professor Ray Cist, who routinely and admittedly assigns final grades, in large measure, based on skin color. Those with darker complexions, as a rule, fare better than those with lighter complexions. Dr. Cist offers as his primary justification the claim that the darker one’s skin, the more valuable they are. Furthermore, Dr. Cist argues, one’s grade should reflect one’s worth. Do you think that the reasons Dr. Cist gives in support of his position are as “good” as the arguments you can imagine supporting the opposing view?