MODULE 1

INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

ABOUT THE MODULE

This module aims to introduce to students the study of ethics as well as the different philosophical
approaches within the discipline. This module provides tools for students to better understand the
essence of what really defines moral and non-moral actions.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
• define the terms ‘philosophy’,and ‘ethics’
• outline the rationale for studying ethics, particularly in relation to peace education
• explain the difference between deontological and teleological ethics
• briefly explain some of the key philosophical approaches in Philosophy such as Kant`s.

1.0 OVERVIEW

The study of ethics belongs within the discipline of philosophy known as ‘moral philosophy’, our
discussion begins there. Philosophy involves the systematic and rational understanding of human
systems of belief. Meanwhile, Ethics is concerned with questions concerning how human beings ought to
live their lives, and about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. In this section we look at how philosophers attempt to
answer such questions in a systematic and rational way. Here, you will learn how to apply moral concepts
into various social issues. This will guide you to better understand the world we live in by using reason
and sound arguments rather than by simply relying upon the common ‘rules of thumb’. In this course,
you are expected to learn, recommend, and defend an ultimate basis of right and wrong behavior. But
first, let us explore what philosophy and ethics are.

1.1 What is ‘philosophy’?

What do you think philosophers do? How do they spend their time? Try to write a
brief definition of philosophy. What is the purpose of ‘doing’ philosophy? (5 points)

Human beings acquire a wealth of information about the world around them. They use these ideas to
build up their beliefs and hopefully to find their place within this world. Those ideas come from a variety
of sources. They may come from scientific discoveries, personal experience, traditional beliefs commonly
held by people in the society in which they live, and so on. Much of the time people accept those ideas
without questioning them; they are relatively ‘unconsidered’ or ‘unexamined’. A philosopher, however,
will attempt to scrutinise such ideas about the world to see if they are based on sound evidence. For
example, many Filipinos nowadays still believe to superstitions. Oftentimes, those who practice these
superstitions do not question them. They simply practice them without asking for a sound evidence of
their truthfulness or origin. “Bawal daw mag walis pag gabi kasi matatabuy ang swerte” duhh?

1.2 Some Philosophers

Look at the list of names below. How many of these philosophers’ names do you
recognise? Do you know anything about their ideas or theories? Choose two names
and find out some biographical information about them and some brief details about
the nature of their work. (10 points)
Karl Marx
Saint Augustine
René Descartes
 Ludwig Wittgenstein
Martin Heidegger
John Locke
George Berkeley
John Dewey
Thomas Aquinas
Baruch Spinoza
John Stuart Mill
Immanuel Kant

What all these philosophers have in common is that they have attempted to answer their chosen
questions by working carefully and systematically through their ideas, convictions, and possible
prejudices to arrive at an answer that they believe to be fair and rational. For instance, while it might be
easy to blame poverty as a fault of poor people who did not do their best to work or study,
philosophers try to find reasoned and rational explanations for why it is so or why it is not so. They
try to look beyond what is already obvious like what Marx did in answering this question. So,
through the study of ethics, you are invited to examine critically your own and others’ arguments and
intuitions about some important issues, however clear-cut those arguments may seem to be at first
glance. The study of ethics is, therefore, just as much concerned with developing the ability to ask and
answer questions as it is with ‘learning’ the answers that other people have suggested to some of the
questions posed here. Hopefully, by building up a clearer picture of the building blocks of people’s beliefs,
values and arguments, ‘we can be more confident about our actual moral behaviour in the real world. We
might even change our minds about a few things’ (Wraight 2011 p. 48).

1.3 What is ‘ethics’?

Are you the type of person who usually ‘does the right thing’? How do you know
what the ‘right thing’ is? What do we mean by the term ‘ethics’? Before you read on,
take a few moments to write down a definition of what you think the term means. (5
points)

‘Ethics’ is concerned with studying and/or building up a coherent set of ‘rules’ or principles by which
people ought to live. The theoretical study of ethics is not normally something that many people would
regard as being necessary in order for them to conduct their everyday activities. In place of
systematically examined ethical frameworks, most people instead carry around a useful set of day-to-day
‘rules of thumb’ that influence and govern their behaviour; commonly, these include rules such as ‘it is
wrong to steal’, ‘it is right to help people in need’, and so on.

But sometimes the vicissitudes and complexities of life mean that these simple rules are sometimes put to
the test. Consider the idea that it is wrong to kill. Does this mean that capital punishment is wrong? Is it
wrong to kill animals? Is killing in self defence wrong? Is the termination of pregnancy wrong? Is
euthanasia wrong? If we try to apply our everyday notions of right and wrong to these questions,
straightforward answers are not always forthcoming. We need to examine these questions in more detail;
and we need theoretical frameworks that can help us to analyse complex problems and to find rational,
coherent solutions to those problems. Whilst some people attempt to do this work individually, for
themselves, philosophers attempt to find general answers that can be used by everyone in society’ Here,
we will explore first the areas of the study of ethics.

1.3.1 METAETHICS
Metaethics deals with the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. It covers two important
questions: (1) is morality objective or subjective? And, (2) what motivates us to be moral?
First question: is morality objective or relative?
Proponents of objective morality argue that moral concepts are absolute and binding upon all rational
creatures. The idea of objective morality is that, moral codes are and ought to be universal. Plato even
likened this idea to the law of mathematics, i.e., 1+ 1 = 2 is true anywhere in the world. Proponents give
some examples of moral laws which possess a universal character such as “murder is wrong” or “robbery
violates property rights.”

On the other hand, proponents of subjective morality argue that morality is merely human invention. This
concept is popularly called moral relativism (we will discuss more on this later). Proponents of this view
deny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that moral values are different from
society to society, and different throughout time. For instance, attitude about polygamy between Muslims
and Christian is different. The former may enter into marriage multiple times and that is still morally
acceptable. Also then, slavery was considered a normal activity, now the same is widely condemned as a
criminal and inhumane act. Thus, for relativists, morality varies among societies and among time and
culture. What is wrong about one may be correct to others.

Second question: What motivates us to be moral?

While we basically judge our actions to be right or wrong, it does not necessarily mean that we
automatically choose the right or the wrong one. Before an act to be realized, there must be some
psychological processes involved.

EGOISM AND ALTRUISM

For Thomas Hobbes our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as
giving alms to the poor, there are still selfish causes for this, such as making other people witness your
actions thus making you feel good. Also, giving free papers to your classmates might seem to be an act of
generosity, but a selfish desire to be popular or to be likened by your classmates still lingers. So, for him,
moral acts are motivated by self-oriented interests. This theory is called psychological egoism. Another
version of this is called hedonism, which views that our actions are motivated by pleasure. We want to
please ourselves; we work, we study, we do all sort of things so that we can minimize pain and maximize
pleasure in whatever forms. On the other hand, some philosophical quarters argue that humans are well
capable of altruism and that we have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others.
Thus, giving papers to classmates might in fact be an act of pure generosity that you indeed is a saint.

EMOTION AND REASON

David Hume argued that our moral acts are motivated by emotions rather than reason. According to him,
we need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason might be of
service in giving us the relevant data, but, in Hume’s words, “reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the
passions.” On the other hand, Immanuel Kant argued that true moral action is motivated only by reason.
According to Kant, we can act morally by solely relying upon reason, not emotion or even religion. For
instance, in deciding whether it is morally proper to steal your classmate`s pen, Kant argued that you
should have the best reason for doing so, if not, you might only upset him or violate his ownership right
and that means you are not acting morally. In short, Kantian perspective suggests that we can act morally
by using only pure reason. In deciding whether reading this module is morally right, we can arrive upon
the right answer without bothering numerous Saints or without asking God and our innermost
conscience. Simply, you have to read this because it will benefit you personally, well your grades, it has to
be high enough so you can impress your future employer if you apply for a job, and your pay will later on
help your parents who troubled sending you to school. We will discuss Kant deeply at the end of our
course.

1.3.2. NORMATIVE ETHICS

Normative ethics deals with the criteria of what is morally right and wrong. It involves the creation of the
ultimate test which defines what is good and bad behavior. In contrast to metaethics, normative ethics
deals with the content of ethical theories rather than their nature or origin. The central question of
normative ethics is: what is the ultimate criterion of moral conduct? The answer to this question falls into
two broad categories, namely: teleological and deontological approaches.

Teleological approach (or utilitarianism/consequentialism as it is popularly known) advocates that

certain kinds of actions are right because of the goodness of their consequences. On the other hand,
Deontological approach emphasizes rules or principles on judging whether an act is inherently right.

In other words, Teleological moral theories locate moral goodness in the consequences of our behavior
and not the behavior itself. It is a goal-directed approach in judging the rightness or wrongness of an
action. For example, is it morally correct for a father to steal food from a grocery store so that he can feed
his starving children? Using a teleological approach, we can say that the answer to this depends upon the
foreseeable consequences. If stealing food will surely prevent his children from starving, then the father
should strongly consider stealing that food. But what if the consequences would be different, what if he
get caught? Or jailed? Then such is a bad consequence, hence the act of stealing might still be wrong
because other actions may prove to be better than stealing i.e., begging in the streets or asking a tip for
manning a parking lot. In short, teleological approach considers the actual consequences by using cost-
benefit analysis in judging the goodness or wrongness of an action. Are you going to buy that phone and
expect no food tomorrow?

Meanwhile, deontological approach is by definition duty-based. Meaning, morality, according to

deontologists, consists in the fulfillment of moral obligations, or duties which are most often associated
with obeying absolute and pre-existing moral rules. Therefore, morality in deontological tradition is
judged not by the consequences of an action rather by the inherent rightness or wrongness of the action
itself. For instance, in the above example, should a father steal food to feed his starving children? While
utilitarian would say that he can, yes, provided that consequences would be best for his children, a
deontologist would absolutely say no. First because, stealing violates personal property rights (from the
standpoint of natural law theorists), second, God commands us not to steal (from divine right theorists),
and third, that it would be horrible to imagine if everyone does the same for the same end (from Kantian
perspective).

1.3.3. APPLIED ETHICS

Applied ethics is concerned with how people can achieve moral outcomes in specific situations.
Therefore, it is concerned with the philosophical examination of particular – and often complex – issues
that involve moral judgments such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. Resolving particular applied
ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its
morality by consulting our normative principle of choice, such as utilitarianism. If a given abortion
produces greater advantage than disadvantage, then, according to utilitarianism, it would be morally
acceptable to have the abortion.

Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of
which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories
prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific issue. The
usual solution to this is to consult several normative principles and theories on a given issue and see
where the weight of the evidence lies.
1.4 Answer the following questions:

A) What is the difference between teleological and deontological approaches in

ethics? (10 points)
B) How consequentialist different from non-consequentialist? (10 points)
C) Is morality absolute or relative? Defend your answer. (10 points)

More readings:
Popkin, Ph.D., Avrum Stroll, Philosophy Made Sipmple (1993). Broadway Books, New York: New York.
eISBN: 978-0-307-82325-0 (Available as pdf.)

References

“Ethics,” by James Fieser, University of Tennessee at Martin U. S. A, The Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/ethics/, 15 August 2020.

“Normative Ethics,” by Brian Duignan, Emily Rodriguez and Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/normative-ethics, 15 August 2020.

Hursthouse, Rosalind and Pettigrove, Glen, "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<https://plato.stanford.edu
/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/>.

Ronald F. White, Ph.D. MORAL INQUIRY (N.D.). College of Mount St. Joseph. Retrieved from:
https://faculty.msj.edu/whiter/ethicsbook.pdf