MCIE1012 - Chapter Three

3.2 Chapter Objectives

Upon successful completion of this chapter, students will be able to:

• Identify the foundations upon which ethical standards are based.
• Understand how ethical standards apply to specific situations.
• Identify the elements contributing to sound ethical decision-making.
• Understand the reasons why individuals and societies need morality.

3.3 Ethical Decision Making and Actions

In practical life, consistently doing the 'right thing' can be difficult. Actions perceived as right might lead to social friction or conflict. Individuals often provide justifications for their decisions and actions, asserting their correctness.

We frequently claim our decisions and actions are right, experiencing regret when they are wrong. However, the ethical assessment depends heavily on our understanding of 'Good' vs. 'Bad' and 'Right' vs. 'Wrong'. Before examining how moral judgments are made, let's consider: What constitutes 'good' or 'bad'?

Philosophically, 'good' can be categorized:

• Instrumental Good: Things valued for their results or what they lead to (e.g., money as a means to security). Their goodness is instrumental.
• Intrinsic Good: Things valued for their own sake, desirable in themselves, not merely as means to other ends (e.g., happiness, knowledge). Their goodness lies in their intrinsic nature.

Similarly, things can be instrumentally bad (leading to bad outcomes) or intrinsically bad (bad in themselves).

Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Bad & Activity

Just as there are instrumental and intrinsic goods, there are things considered instrumentally bad (leading to negative outcomes) and intrinsically bad (wrong or evil in themselves). Some actions or states might possess both instrumental and intrinsic qualities (e.g., a painful medical procedure might be intrinsically bad but instrumentally good if it leads to health). In Ethiopian contexts, practices like Female Genital Mutilation, early marriage, abduction, corruption, and murder are widely considered unethical, bad, or evil practices targeted for eradication.

Ethical reasoning involves critically analyzing the values we hold and the claims we make regarding our obligations to others. In contexts like end-of-life care, key ethical values such as the sanctity of life, quality of life, and autonomy often come into play and require careful consideration and balancing.

A second crucial task of ethics is evaluating the adequacy of reasons given for actions. This involves assessing whether arguments are based on sound evidence and logical reasoning (e.g., evaluating arguments for or against medical interventions based on their justifications).

Challenges in Ethical Reasoning

Weighing ethical values and evaluating moral arguments presents unique challenges compared to other tasks. Ethical values (like courage or justice) are often less tangible or easily measured than practical values (like fuel efficiency). Determining if someone is virtuous is typically harder than measuring their blood pressure.

Ethical problems themselves are frequently complex, ambiguous, and may lack definitive resolutions acceptable to everyone. The goal of applied ethics isn't necessarily to dictate answers or occupy a superior moral position, but rather to provide frameworks and tools for thoughtful deliberation about difficult issues, acknowledging the nuances of diverse roles, situations, and human circumstances.

Despite this complexity, individuals facing ethical challenges have an obligation to seek resolutions sincerely, reasonably, and collaboratively. This entails being open to reviewing and revising one's position through reflection, dialogue, and adaptation to changing circumstances.

3.3.1 Ethical Principles and Values in Moral Judgments

Philosophical ethics involves developing coherent sets of principles or 'rules' guiding how people ought to live. However, most people don't rely on formal ethical theories for everyday moral guidance.

Instead, we typically use practical 'rules of thumb' derived from experience, culture, or intuition, such as 'stealing is wrong' or 'helping those in need is right'.

Life's complexities, however, often challenge these simple rules. Consider "killing is wrong." Does this apply universally to capital punishment, animal slaughter, self-defense, abortion, or euthanasia? Straightforward answers are often elusive, revealing the limitations of simple rules.

Addressing such complex questions requires deeper examination, often employing theoretical frameworks to analyze the nuances and strive for rational, coherent solutions. While individuals engage in this reflection, moral philosophy attempts to develop general principles applicable across society.

3.3.2 Moral Intuitions and Critical Reasoning

Ethical study involves reasoning about our moral feelings and intuitions—making sense of them and subjecting them to rational scrutiny. Humans possess empathy, allowing us to sense others' feelings and identify with their experiences.

Empathy gives rise to moral sentiments (feelings about right and wrong). Applying ethical reasoning to these sentiments helps formulate moral principles. The integration of moral sentiments and reasoned principles forms our conscience. While based partly on emotion, our moral conscience should ideally be supported and refined by reason.

All societies possess ethical ideas and customs, sometimes formalized into laws. These external influences shape individual consciences. Philosophical ethics encourages critical reflection upon these ingrained sentiments, attitudes, and customs, questioning their validity and justification.

3.3.2.1 Avoiding Rationalization

Ethical study emphasizes finding valid reasons for moral positions. While most people hold initial intuitions about right/wrong, a philosophical approach demands critical thinking: supporting or refuting these intuitions with convincing arguments and clearly articulating the underlying reasons and assumptions.

In moral philosophy, an argument's value lies not in 'winning' but in providing considered reasons and fostering rational understanding. This involves careful listening, analysis, and learning from diverse perspectives.

A common pitfall to avoid is rationalization: presenting seemingly rational justifications to mask one's true (perhaps unconscious or less noble) motives. For example, claiming a business decision is solely for job creation when the primary driver is profit constitutes rationalization. Stating both profit and job creation as motivations, if true, is simply giving multiple reasons, not necessarily rationalizing. Distinguishing genuine reasons from rationalizations requires honest self-reflection and critical analysis.

3.3.2.2 Types of Ethical Reasoning

Critical reasoning helps uncover errors in justification. Three common forms of reasoning used in ethical arguments:

• Reasoning by Analogy: Explaining or justifying a position by comparing the current situation to a similar but distinct one. A strong analogy highlights relevant similarities that outweigh dissimilarities, effectively clarifying or supporting the point. Example: Debating animal rights often involves analogies between animal and human capacities. The strength depends on whether the cited similarities are morally relevant to the right being claimed.
• Deductive Reasoning: Applying a general moral principle or rule to a specific situation to derive a conclusion. Example: Principle: Every person has human rights. Premise: You are a person. Conclusion: Therefore, you have human rights. Validity depends on the truth of the premises and the logical structure.
• Inductive Reasoning: Using specific observations or evidence to support a general moral hypothesis or conclusion. The strength depends on the quality and quantity of evidence. Example: Evidence of climate change caused by fossil fuels inductively supports the argument for a moral duty to reduce emissions.

3.3.2.3 Ethics and Religious Faith

Religious faith provides another significant basis for moral arguments for many people, who see morality and faith as intertwined. Actions are often judged right or wrong based on perceived divine commands.

Some moral philosophers argue that faith-based arguments lack rational defensibility accessible to all, believing morality can be determined through reason alone. They might point to the Euthyphro dilemma (is something right *because* God commands it, or does God command it *because* it's right?). If the latter, reason can discern rightness independently.

However, faith-based arguments remain relevant in ethical discourse because:

• Reason alone doesn't always lead to consensus on moral issues.
• Religion provides moral guidance for vast numbers of people and can motivate adherence to high moral standards.
• Understanding diverse ethical perspectives requires engaging with religious viewpoints, even if one doesn't personally accept faith as a basis for justification.

3.3.2.4 Testing Moral Arguments

Critical reasoning involves scrutinizing moral arguments: assessing the type of reasoning used (analogy, deduction, induction), identifying potential biases or rationalizations, and evaluating the logical connection between reasons and conclusions.

While rigorous analysis is important, most people engage in some form of critical reasoning naturally, using experience, intuitions, and reasons. Developing the ability to systematically test arguments (both one's own and others') is crucial for navigating ethical dilemmas.

Three key tests for a moral argument:

1. Factual Accuracy: While ethics deals with 'ought' not just 'is' (Hume's distinction), moral arguments rely on accurate factual premises. If the facts underpinning an argument are wrong, the argument is weakened. Example: An argument against foreign aid based on incorrect facts about fund allocation loses its force if the facts are corrected.
2. Consistency: Arguments and the principles they employ must be consistent. Applying a moral judgment differently in similar situations requires identifying a morally relevant difference. Example: Arguing for debt cancellation for poor nations but not poor individuals requires justifying the distinction based on morally relevant factors.
3. Good Will (Intent): This assesses the underlying motivation and spirit of the argument. Does it reflect genuine concern for ethical values and constructive dialogue? While harder to quantify, arguments lacking good will (e.g., those driven by malice or aimed solely at deception) are ethically suspect.

3.3.3 A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

Making ethical decisions requires more than just intuition. A structured approach can help navigate complex situations.

Step 1: Gather the Facts. This seems obvious but is often overlooked. Many disagreements arise from misunderstanding or ignoring relevant facts. Ensure you have accurate, comprehensive information about the situation. Remember, facts describe *what is*, not *what ought to be*.

Step 2: Identify and Appeal to Ethical Values and Principles. Resolving ethical issues requires considering relevant values. Philosophers have developed various approaches to ethical analysis that highlight different core values:

• The Utilitarian Approach
• The Rights Approach
• The Fairness or Justice Approach
• The Common Good Approach
• The Virtue Approach

Ethical Approach 1: The Fairness or Justice Approach

Rooted in Aristotle's idea that “equals should be treated equally and unequal's unequally,” this approach focuses on fairness and consistency. Key questions:

• How fair is the action?
• Does it treat everyone the same way, or does it show favoritism or discrimination?

Favoritism (granting benefits without justification) and discrimination (imposing burdens unfairly) are considered unjust. The core principle is: “Treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them."

Ethical Approach 2: The Common Good Approach

Originating with Greek philosophers, this approach views life in community as inherently valuable and emphasizes actions contributing to that community. Ethical reasoning stems from societal relationships, highlighting respect, compassion (especially for the vulnerable), and the importance of shared conditions essential for everyone's welfare (e.g., laws, public safety, healthcare, education, environment).

It envisions society as individuals joined in pursuing common values and goals. Philosophers like John Rawls defined the common good in terms of "certain general conditions that are... equally to everyone's advantage." The focus is on ensuring social systems and policies benefit all members.

While respecting individual freedom, this approach challenges us to consider and advance shared goals. The guiding principle: “What is ethical is what advances the common good."

Ethical Approach 3: The Rights Approach

Rooted in 18th-century philosophy (Kant, Locke), this approach focuses on protecting and respecting the moral rights of individuals. It holds that humans have inherent dignity based on their capacity for free choice, giving rise to a fundamental right to have their choices respected. People should not be treated merely as objects or means to an end.

From the basic right to free choice stem other rights, such as:

• Right to Truth: Entitlement to truthful information affecting choices.
• Right to Privacy: Freedom in personal life, as long as others' rights aren't violated.
• Right Not to Be Injured: Protection from harm unless freely chosen or deserved.
• Right to What Is Agreed: Entitlement based on free contracts/agreements.

The central question for evaluating actions: Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone involved? Actions violating rights are considered wrong; the severity of the violation correlates with the wrongfulness.

Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Framework

No single approach provides all answers. Using multiple approaches offers a more comprehensive perspective. After gathering facts, ask these questions to analyze an ethical issue:

1. Utilitarian Perspective: What are the potential benefits and harms of each course of action? Which option leads to the best overall consequences for everyone affected?
2. Rights Perspective: What moral rights (e.g., truth, privacy, non-injury, agreement) do the affected parties possess? Which option best respects and protects those rights?
3. Fairness/Justice Perspective: Which option treats everyone equally or proportionally? Does it avoid favoritism and discrimination based on irrelevant factors?
4. Common Good Perspective: Which course of action best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? Does it advance shared beneficial conditions?
5. Virtue Perspective: Which option allows me to act according to the kind of person I want to be (e.g., honest, compassionate, courageous)? Which action aligns with admirable virtues?

Considering these different angles helps ensure a more thorough and well-reasoned ethical decision.

3.4 To Whom or What Does Morality Apply?

Morality is typically applied in several contexts:

3.4.1 Religious Morality

Concerns the relationship between humans and supernatural being(s). Often involves duties specifically owed to the divine (e.g., worship, adherence to divine commands), distinct from duties owed to other humans. Example: The first three of the Ten Commandments in Judeo-Christian tradition focus on duties towards God.

3.4.2 Morality and Nature

Concerns the human relationship with the natural environment. Some traditions (e.g., indigenous cultures) ascribe moral status to nature itself. Modern environmental ethics explores whether nature has intrinsic value or only instrumental value for humans, raising questions about moral obligations towards ecosystems or animals independent of human benefit.

Scope of Morality (Continued)

3.4.3 Individual Morality

Refers to an individual's relationship to themselves and their personal code of conduct, which might differ from societal or religious norms. This allows for the concept of individual conscience guiding actions based on personal values, potentially leading to acting according to a "higher morality" than prevailing standards.

3.4.4 Social Morality

Concerns relationships between human beings. This is arguably the most central aspect of morality, cutting across other categories and present in nearly all ethical systems. Many actions considered morally significant involve impacts on others. Isolated individuals (like Robinson Crusoe before Friday) have limited scope for significant moral action towards others. Many ethical frameworks prioritize actions affecting others, sometimes viewing purely self-regarding actions as outside the scope of morality unless they indirectly harm others.

3.5 Who is Morally Responsible?

Generally, morality applies primarily to human beings, who are considered capable of rational thought, free choice, and understanding moral principles. Attributing morality to supernatural beings requires faith.

Animals and plants are typically considered non-moral or amoral (outside the sphere of morality). Their actions are guided by instinct, not reasoned moral choice. While research explores animal cognition, current understanding suggests they lack the capacity for moral responsibility in the human sense.

Therefore, when discussing moral action and responsibility, the focus is almost exclusively on human agents. We hold humans accountable for their actions because they possess the capacity for moral deliberation and choice. Actions like a wolf killing a sheep are natural events, not immoral acts; we might intervene for practical reasons (protecting livestock), not because the wolf is morally blameworthy.

3.5.1 Understanding Moral Judgments

Moral judgments involve assessing the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, of actions, intentions, or character traits, particularly concerning human conduct and relationships. We constantly make such judgments about our own behavior and that of others.

Moral judgments typically apply to voluntary actions—those performed with intention and choice. We generally don't hold people morally responsible for involuntary actions over which they had no control (though negligence leading to harm can be culpable).

These judgments are inherently evaluative (assigning moral value) and normative (assessing against moral standards or norms).

Making sound moral judgments is often complex. There's no simple algorithm. Applying rules requires interpretation and sensitivity to context. As philosopher Onora O'Neill suggests, principles aren't auto-pilots; judgment, informed by sensitivity, experience, intelligence, and goodwill, is always needed, yet doubt may remain. Factors typically considered include motives, means, consequences, and the situation itself.

Key Factors in Moral Judgment (1)

1. Motives (Intentions):

The reason *why* an action is performed is often considered fundamental to its moral worth (central in Kantian ethics). A good motive is often seen as a prerequisite for full moral approval. If an action from a good motive accidentally causes harm, we might disapprove less ("He meant well"). Kant argued that only actions done *from* a sense of duty (out of respect for the moral law) possess true moral worth.

2. Means:

The methods or actions used to achieve an end are also morally relevant. We generally expect ethical actions to employ the best available, morally permissible means. Using unjust, cruel, or immoral means is typically condemned, even if the intended end is good. The idea that "the end justifies the means" is ethically controversial because the means chosen become part of the action's overall moral character and consequences.

Key Factors (2) & Defining Moral Actions

3. Consequences:

The results or effects of an action are central, especially for consequentialist theories like utilitarianism. We often judge an act's rightness based on whether its consequences are good or bad. Ideally, a morally right action, stemming from good motives and using proper means, should lead to good consequences. If all conditions are met, the act receives approval; if not, approval might be qualified or withheld. Actions leading to clearly evil results are rarely approved, regardless of motive.

4. The Moral Situation:

Refers to the context involving moral agents (humans making choices), their obligations and rights, the available alternatives, and the relevant factors influencing the decision.

3.5.2 What Makes an Action Moral (vs. Non-Moral)?

Philosophically, "moral" can mean "morally good," but often it simply means "pertaining to the sphere of morality" (i.e., morally significant, whether good or bad), as opposed to non-moral or morally neutral actions (like choosing what color shirt to wear).

What brings an action into the moral sphere? Key features:

Features of a Morally Significant Action

A. Involves a Moral Agent: Performed by beings capable of free choice and understanding moral concepts (typically humans). Natural events or instinctual animal actions are generally considered non-moral.

B. Involves Intention: Actions must generally be intentional to be morally assessed. Accidental happenings usually lack moral dimension, although *negligence* (failure to exercise due care) can be morally blameworthy.

C. Affects Others (Typically): Actions usually enter the moral sphere when they have significant consequences (harmful or beneficial) for others (moral patients).

Note: Whether purely self-regarding actions (e.g., substance abuse, not developing talents) fall under morality is debated. Some views tie this to religious concepts (violating duties to God) or broader notions of self-harm or potential harm to society. Distinguishing purely moral assessment from religious or prudential assessment is important here.

In summary, a morally significant action typically involves:

• A moral agent (with choice).
• Intention (or culpable negligence).
• Significant consequences for self or others.

3.6 Why Should We Be Moral?

This fundamental question asks for justification: Why choose good/right over bad/wrong, especially when immorality might seem advantageous? Setting aside purely supernatural justifications, what secular reasons support being moral?

The necessity of moral regulation for societal existence seems clear; humans are inherently social. As John Hospers suggests, morality involves rules designed to override self-interest when doing so benefits everyone collectively.

Arguments for Being Moral (1)

A. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest:

It is generally in one's own long-term interest to live in a good, stable, cooperative society rather than a bad, chaotic one. If *everyone* follows moral rules (not stealing, lying, killing), each individual benefits from the resulting security and predictability. While distinct from ethical egoism (which solely prioritizes self), this argument appeals to the self-interested benefits derived from a generally moral environment (including avoiding punishment).

B. Argument from Tradition and Law:

Societies develop moral traditions and laws over long periods, embodying collective wisdom and effort aimed at regulating behavior for stability and well-being. Respect for this accumulated human experience provides a reason to adhere to established moral norms, alongside self-interest. However, relying solely on tradition can stifle critical questioning, which is essential for moral progress.

Arguments for Being Moral (2)

C. Argument from Common Human Needs:

Humans share fundamental needs and desires for things like security, freedom, happiness, love, friendship, peace, and stability. Fulfilling these needs effectively requires social cooperation and adherence to moral principles that foster trust and prevent harm (e.g., prohibitions against killing, stealing, lying; principles promoting fairness and cooperation).

As John Hospers notes, morality is not identical to self-interest; conflicts can arise. Morality involves rules that sometimes require overriding immediate self-interest for the sake of a system beneficial to all.

Morality arises partly from recognizing our shared needs and the importance of cooperation for a fulfilling life. While these arguments might not convince everyone in every situation (especially when immorality seems personally advantageous and risk-free), they provide strong general justifications. Adhering to moral principles generally enables a more peaceful, stable, meaningful, and ultimately more satisfying life within a community.

Answering "Why Be Moral?"

Given societal decline and the allure of self-interest, why follow moral rules? Common motivations include self-respect, seeking social approval, avoiding punishment, divine command (for believers), and setting parental examples. While powerful for some, these don't universally compel moral behavior.

The question has two parts:

1. Why does *society* need moral rules?
2. Why should *I* personally be moral?

Hobbes argued society needs morality to avoid a "war of all against all." Moral rules, though restricting freedom, ultimately promote greater freedom and well-being for nearly everyone. They fulfill essential social functions:

1. Prevent social collapse.
2. Alleviate suffering.
3. Promote human flourishing.
4. Resolve conflicts justly.
5. Enable assignment of responsibility (praise, blame, reward, punishment).

Conclusion: The Value of Morality

Morality is fundamentally social. For the individual ("Why should *I* be moral?"), the answer often lies in recognizing that participating in a generally moral system, even if occasionally disadvantageous personally, yields greater long-term benefits and a more desirable form of life overall than the alternatives.

Ethical reasoning provides the rationale for adopting and maintaining moral structures. Theories and principles offer foundational viewpoints for ethical analysis and guidance. Sound ethical decision-making requires rational procedures, respect for others, consideration of relevant factors, and a commitment to fairness.

As Aristotle emphasized, moral character isn't innate but developed through consistent practice. Understanding *why* morality is valuable provides motivation, much like understanding why medicine promotes health motivates taking it. Engaging with ethical theory clarifies the significance and benefits of striving for a moral life.

References