Category: ETHICS

Posted on

Natural Law Ethics (St. Thomas Aquinas’s Christian Ethics)

Searching for budget-friendly accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Discover Residence 2 at Belle’s Residences—a cozy retreat designed for comfort and relaxation. Conveniently located near Panglao’s stunning beaches, this residence offers modern amenities at an unbeatable value.
 
For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA ARBNB

Natural law ethics is a popular name attributed to the model of ethics developed by St. Thomas Aquinas during the Medieval period. Because it was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law ethics is also called Thomistic ethics.

The basic idea in natural law ethics is that “Reason” is the source of the moral law and that it directs us towards the “Good”. According to Aquinas, the “Good” is the ultimate goal of the person’s actions. And for Aquinas, the “Good” is discoverable within the person’s nature. This explains why the basic goal of natural law ethics is “to do good and avoid evil”.

Now, how do we know that a person is acting rightly or wrongly?

According to Aquinas, an act is morally right if it is done in accordance with the moral law. But what is the moral law?

As already mentioned, “reason” is the source of moral law; hence, the moral law is the dictate of reason. But for Aquinas, the moral law comes from God’s Eternal Law. Indeed, for Aquinas, the moral law is the Divine Law expressed in human nature, which reads: “Do good and avoid evil.”

If the moral law is “doing good and avoiding evil,” how do we know that one is acting in accordance with the good?

According to Aquinas, the “good” is that which is suitable to human nature or that which is proper to human nature. And for Aquinas, we know that an action is good, that is, suitable to human nature, if it is done in accordance with conscience.

Aquinas understands conscience as the inner voice of the intellect or reason which calls the human person to follow the moral law, that is, to do good and avoid evil. As we can see, in natural law ethics, conscience serves as the guide in making moral decisions.

But how do we know that one’s action obeys conscience?

According to Aquinas, an action obeys conscience if it satisfies the three-fold natural inclination of the human person, namely: 

1) self-preservation, 2) just dealing with others, and 3) propagation of human species.

Self-preservation, for Aquinas, is a natural inclination that urges the human person to take care of her health or not to kill or put herself in danger. This explains why for Aquinas suicide is absolutely wrong.

Just dealing with others urges us to treat others with the same respect that we accord ourselves. Thus, for Aquinas, all forms of inhumanities, such as exploitation, seduction, deception, manipulation, cheating, kidnapping, murder, and intimidation, are absolutely wrong too.

In terms of the propagation of human species, Aquinas believes that the reproductive organ is by nature designed to reproduce and propagate human species. Any act of intervention, therefore, that frustrates the very purpose of the reproductive organ is unnatural, hence immoral. This explains why even masturbation is immoral in natural law ethics.

It must be noted that for Aquinas if at least one of these three natural inclinations of the human person is violated, then an act does not obey conscience; it is therefore immoral. Needless to say, for an action to be considered moral in natural law ethics, it must be done in accordance with conscience. Again, it must be done in accordance with the moral law, that is, “doing good and avoiding evil”.

Three Determinants of Moral Actions

In addition to the three-fold natural inclinations of the human person, Aquinas introduced three things that determine the morality of a human act, namely:

1) object of the human act, 
2) its circumstance, and 
3) its end.

The object of the act refers to that which the will intends primarily and directly. It may either be a thing or an action. Take, for example, the physician’s act of removing a tumor. As we can see, the direct object of the act is “to remove a tumor”. Please note that the circumstance and the end are also intended here, but not directly.

The circumstance refers to the condition which affects the morality of an action. It is important to note that the circumstance may aggravate or mitigate the morality of the human act.

Aquinas classified circumstance into:

1) quality of a person (who), 
2) quality or quantity of the moral object (what), 
3) the circumstance of place (where), 
4) the circumstance of means (by what means), 
5) the circumstance of end (why), 
6) manner in which the action is done (how), and 
7) time element involved in the performance of the action (when).

As to the first, it is bad to rape a woman, but it is worse to rape a daughter.

As to the second, the act of a taxi driver who returns a wallet containing a couple of thousand dollars is good in itself, but that of one who takes the initiative of returning fifty thousand dollars left by a tourist is even better.

As to the third, smoking in public may not be good, but it is worse if one smokes inside a church.

As to the fourth, to pray for a sick person is good in itself, but to give her money for medicine for her medication is better.

As to the fifth, helping an orphan kid finish schooling is good, but doing it with the intention of employing her later is better.

As to the sixth, killing might generally be conceived as evil. But in the case of unjust aggression, it might be morally right to kill the aggressor.

And as to the seventh, it might not be a good idea to smoke inside the church, but it is worse to do it while the mass is going on.

The end of the act refers to the purpose of the doer or the agent of the human act itself. According to Aquinas, it can be taken as a circumstance because the end is an integral part of every moral act. For example, marrying a person one is engaged to is good in itself. But doing so while motivated by the selfish end of, say, taking a big share of an inheritance, makes the whole action morally wrong.

It must be noted that for Aquinas, all the three determinants of a human act must be all good for an act to be considered good or morally right.

Four Principles of Double Effect

Sometimes a human act may produce two conflicting results, that is, one is good and the other is evil. To address this dilemma, Aquinas formulated the four principles of double effect, namely:

  1. The action intended must be good in itself, or at least morally indifferent; otherwise, the act is evil at the very outset;
  2. The good effect must follow the action at least as immediately as the evil effect, or the good and evil effects must occur simultaneously;
  3. The foreseen evil effect should not be intended or approved, but merely permitted to occur; and
  4. There must be a proportionate and sufficient reason for allowing the evil effect to occur while performing the action.

According to Aquinas, all of the 4 principles must be satisfied for an action to be considered morally right.

Let us take for example the act of removing a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman which necessarily implies abortion. As we can see, the act will produce two results, one good and the other is evil. Of course, the removal of the cancerous uterus of the pregnant woman will definitely save her life (good result) but at the same time, it will kill the fetus (evil result). So, what is the morality of the action if we apply Aquinas’s four principles of double effect?

Please note that the act is simply to remove the cancerous uterus. So, obviously, we satisfy principle #1 because the intention of removing the cancerous uterus is good in itself. We may even view it as morally indifferent.

We also satisfy principle #2 because the good effect, that is, the recovery of the pregnant woman follows the action immediately. And even if the fetus dies after the removal of the cancerous uterus, at least this evil effect occurs simultaneously with the good effect.

Principle #3 is also satisfied because abortion, that is, the death of the fetus, was not intended. It was just allowed to happen. As we can see, the main intention of removing the cancerous uterus of the pregnant woman is to save her life. Even if the death of the fetus was foreseen, according to Aquinas, it was just allowed to occur.

And lastly, principle #4 is also satisfied because there is indeed a sufficient reason for allowing the evil effect, that is, abortion or the killing of the fetus, to happen. Needless to say, if we don’t remove the cancerous uterus, then we lose both the lives of the woman and the fetus. But if we remove the cancerous uterus, at least, as Aquinas would have us believe, we save one life.

As we can see, the removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman which implies abortion is morally right.

Let us take another example, that of killing a drug lord. As is well known, illegal drugs have been destroying many lives both young and old. So, killing a drug lord will produce a good result. However, the act produces an evil result too, that is, murder. So, what is the morality of the act of killing the drug lord from the vantage point of Aquinas’s 4 principles of double effect?

A utilitarian may argue that the act of killing the drug lord is good as it may produce more benefits, that is, greatest happiness, to the greatest number of people concerned. However, for Aquinas, the act of killing the drug lord is intrinsically immoral because, as we can see, it does not satisfy the first principle of the 4 principles of double effect. The first principle says that the act must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent. But the act of “killing” (the drug lord) is evil in itself. Hence, even if this act produces more benefits to many people concerned, for Aquinas, it is absolutely immoral. This explains why the Roman Catholics, who adhere to Aquinas’s natural law ethics, strongly oppose extrajudicial killing (EJK) in general and killing a drug lord in particular.

Now, since the first principle is violated, we need not proceed and check the remaining principles because in the first place the act is already immoral. `

Posted on

Ethical Relativism: Meaning and Types

Ethical relativism or moral relativism is the view that ethical or moral values and beliefs are relative to the various individuals or societies that hold them. Thus, according to the ethical or moral relativists, there is no objective right and wrong. This means that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another or what is right in some circumstances is not necessarily in another.

Two Forms of Ethical Relativism

There are two forms of ethical relativism, namely: 

1) Personal or Individual Ethical Relativism and 
2) Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism.

On the one hand, personal or individual ethical relativism holds that ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes of individual persons. Hence, for the individual ethical relativists, there is no objective standard of right and wrong inasmuch as the “individual person” is the basis of moral judgments. The ethical relativist may, therefore, say “I have my own view and you have yours. Neither my view nor yours is better or more correct.”

Let us take, for example, senicide or geronticide, that is, the abandonment to death or killing of the elderly. There was a common belief that during famines or other extremely difficult situations, the Inuit or the indigenous people of Northern America would leave their elderly on the ice to die. If this is indeed the case, the individual relativist would say that no one, especially the outsiders of this culture, has the right to say that the Inuit are wrong because the morality of such action depends entirely on the individual Intuit beliefs. Hence, in individual ethical relativism, any person has no right to say that others are correct or incorrect since to do so would assume an objective standard of right and wrong. As we can see, this example is considered an individual or personal ethical relativism because it is the individual that is the basis of moral judgment.

On the other hand, social or cultural ethical relativism holds that ethical values and beliefs vary from society to society and that the basis of moral judgment lies in these social or cultural views. Thus, in determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions, one must base it on the norms of a particular society. Let us take, for example, the ancient Indian practice of Sati or Suttee.

As is well known, the ancient Indians had the practice of burning the wife alive in the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. Whatever the reasons behind this practice, the act was seen as heroic. In fact, records show that some wives willingly allowed themselves to be burnt alive on their husbands’ funeral pyre. Indeed, if an outsider is to judge this act, she may view this as immoral, especially if she is a Christian. But for the social ethical relativist, that might be the right to do in that particular culture. This is because, for the social ethical relativists, no society’s view is better than any other in a trans-cultural sense.  Hence, no society has the right to say that particular culture of a certain society is wrong.

From what we have just presented above, we can draw three possible reasons that support ethical relativism.

First, on the diversity of moral values. The ethical relativists may have argued that the presence of disagreements on many ethical issues or even on basic moral values or principles will prove the point that we cannot attain objective truth. Hence, the idea of objective right and wrong is inconceivable for ethical relativists.

Second, on moral uncertainty. Because of moral uncertainty, the ethical relativists would have argued that because there is great difficulty in knowing what is the morally right thing to do or believe, then again, we cannot attain objective right or wrong.

Third and last, on situational differences. For the ethical relativists, the situations and life world of different people vary so much that it is difficult to believe that same things that would be right for one would be right for another. Hence, what is right or wrong for one may not be necessarily right or wrong for another.

Posted on

Moral Standard versus Non-Moral Standard

Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.
 
For inquiries, visit us:
 
Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA ARBNB

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is, of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 

  1. moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit 

humans, animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 

  1. moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of 

authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 

  1. moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other 

standards and considerations, especially of self-interest; 

  1. moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral 

standards are fair and just; and 

  1. moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and 

shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.

Posted on

Moral Dilemmas: Definition and Types

Searching for budget-friendly accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Discover Residence 2 at Belle’s Residences—a cozy retreat designed for comfort and relaxation. Conveniently located near Panglao’s stunning beaches, this residence offers modern amenities at an unbeatable value.
 
For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA ARBNB

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and dynamics of moral dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for economic development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can say is that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example:

Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Lindsay continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay is faced with a huge moral dilemma.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur. And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are categorized into the following: 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas, 3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and 4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or wrong. For instance, I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early, but on my way home I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to the hospital. Where does my actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there are conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is an important purpose being served by my getting home early? How serious is the condition of the sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which option is morally right in this situation. However, one option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of the situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas. Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand, involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements. For instance, a military doctor is attending to the needs of the wounded soldiers in the middle of the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a blood transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is available at the moment. To whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion? For sure, we could not tell whether administering a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more moral than administering a blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example, David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the campaign period, he promised the indigenous peoples in his community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the same time, he seeks financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the elections, yet he is faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at the same time allows the mining corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through his own actions, David created a situation in which it is impossible for him to be discharged from both obligations. A world-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand, means that certain events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. William Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie Zawistowska has been asked to choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to only one of Sophie’s children. If she does not choose which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their death. Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the Children’s Camp.”

Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory, while prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. The famous “Sartre’s Student” is a classic example. It reads:

moral dilemmas

The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of prohibition dilemmas.

Finally, in single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more equally the same moral options but she cannot choose both. For instance, a medical doctor found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor may experience tension between the legal requirement to report the case and the desire to respect confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics acknowledges our obligation to follow legal requirements and to intervene to protect the vulnerable. In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs in situations that involve several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is expected to come up with consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. A family may be torn between choosing to terminate or prolong the life of a family member. An organization may have to choose between complying with the wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying them below the required minimum wage.  The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to do what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent the organization from breaking apart”.

Posted on

What is Ethics? Meaning, Definition, and Types

In these notes, I will address the question “What is ethics?“. I will also discuss the different types of ethics, namely, normative ethics, metaethics, and applied ethics.

The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, which originally means custom or character. Broadly construed, ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In particular, this branch of philosophy is concerned with questions of how human persons ought to act, and the search for a definition of a right conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the “good” through the aid of reason is the traditional goal of ethicists (Albert, Denise & Peterfreund 1984, p. 1-2).

It must be noted, however, that there is no single, absolute definition of ethics. This is because ethics as a discipline is constantly evolving as a result of a change in socio-cultural and political context. For example, in the Greek tradition, ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the “good life”. Thus, the ethical inquiry during this time was directed toward discovering the nature of happiness. In fact, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics does not only present a theory of happiness but also provides ways in which happiness is attained. Now, centuries later, a quite different orientation was introduced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this ethical tradition, the ideals of righteousness before God and the love of God and neighbor, not the happy or pleasant life, constitute the substance of ethics. Indeed, if we make an effort to reconcile these views, we are faced with the difficult task of defining the relationship between “doing what is right” and “being happy”. Again, it is for this reason that we cannot have an absolute definition of ethics. The least that we can do, in my opinion, is to describe the nature and dynamics of ethics based on a specific time and context.

It is also important to note that ethics is not the same with morality, although many philosophers believe that the two terms can be used interchangeably. This is because the former denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while the latter indicates practice, that is, the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In other words, ethics undertakes the systematic study (that is, questioning and critical examination) of the underlying principles of morality. Hence, it is interested primarily in the illustration of a more general problem and the examination of underlying assumptions and the critical evaluation of moral principles.

Morality, on the other hand, is more prescriptive in nature. It tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us to follow the right way. According to Terrance McConnell (1994), “morality is characterized as an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’ whose object is to equip people with a body of norms (rules and values) that make for peaceful and collectively satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together and interacting in a way that is productive for the realization of the general benefit”. For example, a religious leader may ask her followers to be good at all times. In this way, a moralist may want to keep alive the values she considers to be worthwhile and to improve the moral quality of the community where she belongs. Hence, morality, at the very least, aims to guide one’s action by reason and gives equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Indeed, this gives us a picture of what it really means to be a morally upright person.

Based on the brief discussion above, we may conclude that ethics is the science of morals, while morality is the practice of ethics.

Types of Ethics

During the mid-20th century, according to Sumner (1967), a “certain theory in the methodology of ethics has gradually become more and more widely accepted, at least by British and American moral philosophers”. According to this position, there are two ways of doing ethical inquiry, namely, normative ethics and metaethics.

On the one hand, normative ethics is prescriptive in nature as it seeks to set norms or standards that regulate right and wrong or good and bad conduct.  This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Hence, normative ethics normally attempts to develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave. For example, Immanuel Kant’s claim that an act is morally right if it is done for the sake of duty is an example of a normative ethics.

Metaethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According to Sumner (1967), “metaethics is allegedly constituted, at least in part, by questions of the meanings of the various ethical terms and functions of ethical utterances.” Hence, if a normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive, metaethics is analytical and descriptive. Put simply, metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to understand the nature and dynamics of ethical principles. It asks questions about the nature and origin of moral facts, as well as the way in which we learn and acquire moral beliefs. Thus, for example, if normative ethics urges us to do good at all times, metaethics asks the question “What is good?”. For sure, if a moral philosopher attempts to address the questions “What is good?”, “What is justice?”, “Why should I be moral?”, then that moral philosopher is doing metaethics. Hence, when Plato proposed an answer to the question “Why should I be moral”, Plato was doing metaethics―indeed, Plato raised a metaethical question.

In the course of the development of ethics, applied ethics became its third major type. As its name suggests, applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of deciding which ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given situation. For this reason, casuists (that is, the adherents of applied ethics) are concerned with individual moral problems, such as abortion or euthanasia, and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues that surround these particular moral problems. Casuists may also act on some occasions in an advisory capacity, such as guiding individuals in their choice of actions. For example, they may attempt to resolve the conflicting duties of a mother suffering from ectopic pregnancy who has no other option than to abort the fetus.

Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields. For example, we may talk about business ethics, which deals with ethical behavior in the corporate world; biomedical and environmental ethics, which deal with issues relating to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have towards people and our environment; and social ethics, which deals with the principles and guidelines that regulate corporate welfare within societies.

Finally, the difference between the three major types of ethics can be illustrated in the following situation:

A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded shopping mall.

The act of the police officer is morally wrong according to metaethics because it is always wrong to kill. As is well known, killing in itself is intrinsically wrong. However, if the police officer does not shoot the terrorist, many innocent people will die or get injured. Though the police officer’s act may be wrong, the adherents of normative ethics may say that it is the right thing to do in this particular situation because not doing so will result in the death of so many people. Hence, the action might be morally correct. Finally, the casuists may say that the police officer is just doing his best to fulfill his duty, that is, to protect as many innocent lives as possible.

References

Albert, E., Denise, T., and Peterfreund, S. (1984). Great Traditions in Ethics. 5th ed. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

McConnell, T. (1994). Review: On the Nature and Scope of Morality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54(2), pp. 421-425.

Sumner, L. W. (1967). Normative and Metaethics, 77(2), pp. 95-106.

error: Content is protected !!