GEC107 ETHICS Notes File 1
Everyday Ethics
“What good was law when rogue Chinese scientist He
Jiankui claims to have edited the DNA of twin girls?
Innovation-friendly tech regulation is critical but often
ineffective. Ethics requires thinking first and acting
second. Ethics should be a habit of decision and
commitment, driving every choice at all levels of an
organization.”
Susan Liautaud, lecturer of ethics at Stanford
University and ethics consultant
Time Magazine, January 28, 2017, Page 33
AN ANALYSIS OF ETHICAL THEORIES
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy)
involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong
behavior.
This is to provide a solid foundation in classifying
ethical theories by comparing and contrasting them in
terms of how good is defined and how right is defined
in terms of the good and moral principles.
The fundamental elements of a complete ethical
system must have the following:
1. It must provide a definition of good (and its
opposite bad).
2. It must provide a definition of what is right in
terms of good.
3. It must provide a statement of the moral
principle in clear and uncertain terms.
Without these bare minimum requirements, the
ethical theory is incomplete.
In normative ethics, a basic distinction is drawn
between a statement of value and a statement of
obligation.
(Normative ethics takes on a more
practical task, which is to arrive at moral
standards that regulate right and wrong
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.)
Statement of value deals with moral philosophers’
estimate of the worth or value of an act, object,
person, event, etc. This is the moral philosophers’
answer to the question what is good? Usually it takes
in the form of evaluative statements like X is good,
right, correct, just, etc.
Statement of Obligation deals with the question what
you ought to do? This pertains to your duty and
obligation. This is the philosophers’ answer to the
question what is right? They take the form of
prescriptive statement: you ought to do Y or in the
form of proscriptive statement: Don’t do X. Ten
Commandments is the best example of proscriptive
statements.
The moral code is a systematic proscription that covers
all situations that proponents are likely to encounter in
their life. It provides a formal support to the religious
customs and tradition of a group of people. A group of
people coming from same culture and/or religion are
likely to judge the worth and value of an act, object or
event in the same way. And if you interact with people
trained to accept the same moral code – this would
add to the strength of public, approval or inter-
subjective consensus.
Ethicists / Moral philosophers’ concept of what is good:
instrumental good and intrinsic good. Intrinsic good is
pursued for their own sake. They are ends in
themselves and no used as means for some other
ends.
Aristotle believes that happiness is the only
intrinsic good, summum bonum, the highest good of all
human life. “Happiness, then, is something final and
self-sufficient, and is the end of action.”
Instrumental good are those that are used as
means for attaining some other good – presumably the
intrinsic good. Like wealth, intelligence and beauty are
instrumental good if they are used as means for
attaining the intrinsic good like happiness.
There is no consensus among moral philosophers
regarding the kinds of things that are considered
intrinsic good or instrumental good.
Intelligence can be intrinsic or instrumental good.
Which is intrinsic or instrumental good?
1. A comfortable life
2. Ambitious
3. A world of beauty
4. Helpful
5. A sense of accomplishment
6. Forgiving
7. Equality
8. Honest
9. Freedom
10. Logical
11. Happiness
12. Self-controlled
13. Inner beauty
14. Responsible
15. Pleasure
16. Capable
17. Salvation
18. Imaginative
19. Social recognition
20. Broadminded
21. Wisdom
22. Obedient
23. Self-respect
24. Mature love
25. Development of potentials
26. Self-esteem
27. Self-worth
All these are arbitrary, John Dewey believed that
there is no intrinsic good, all are instrumental good.
Two Types of Ethical System with regards to the
concept on intrinsic good: monist (hedonist) and
dualist (pluralist / non-hedonist).
The monist would argue that there is only thing
that is intrinsically good. Hedonism is the best
example of a monist. Jeremy Bentham would argue
that only pleasure is intrinsically good. Nothing else
but pleasure. He developed a hedonistic calculus that
can measure the quantitative worth and value of any
pleasure.
Monist and Pluralist
Monist believes that there is only one thing that is
intrinsically good like hedonism.
Jeremy Bentham believes that pleasure is the only
intrinsic good, nothing else. He developed a hedonistic
calculus to measure the quantitative worth and value
of any pleasures. He believes that there is only one
kind of pleasure, quality of pleasure is not important.
Epicurus and J.S. Mill attempted to differentiate the
quality of pleasures in terms of physical, intellectual,
and spiritual pleasures. They believed that there are
higher forms of pleasure than what Bentham would
want to emphasize.
Mill said that: I would rather be a man dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied. Mill said that it is not the quantity
of pleasure that is important but the quality and, for
him; intellectual pleasure is the only intrinsic good.
Pluralist (non-hedonist) believes that there are
many intrinsic good.
Plato said life is a mixed life. It is the balance of
many elements: proportion, beauty, intelligence,
wisdom, science, pure pleasure of the soul, etc.
W.D. Ross said there are four: virtuous disposition,
knowledge, pleasure, and the just proportion of
pleasure to the virtuous.
1. What is good?
2. What is right?
The moral question is What you ought to do? This
question divides philosophers into two camps: virtue
ethics, deontologists and teleologists
(consequentialism).
If you are a deontologist, you will judge the rightness
of an act by considering the act alone. The
consequence of the act is unimportant.
Acts that are prohibited are stated in clear and simple
terms. There is no provision for exemptions or
overriding conditions. So long as you obey them, your
action is right.
If happiness is the intrinsic good, then any action that
maximizes happiness is a right action and wrong if it
does the reverse.
The teleologists (consequentialism) are subdivided on
the issue of beneficiary of right actions that maximize
the intrinsic good – egoism and utilitarianism.
Egoistic theories envision that the beneficiary or
recipient of the act is the moral agent himself. Any
envision that maximizes the good for oneself is right.
In Plato’s version of egoism, he states that each
person ought to do what will further his self-interest.
There are reciprocity versions of egoism. When you
enjoined to do an act that will benefit another person
because you expect that person to do the same to
you, we have a type of egoism that is dubbed
enlightenend egoism. Helping other people is
calculated to promote one’s self-interest. How many
of our politicians are enlightened egoists.
The fundamental difference between an egoist and a
utilitarian is the egoist will ask: What actions will
maximize the greatest good for me? In contrast, the
utilitarian will ask: What will maximize the good for
the greatest number? The moral principle of the
egoist is self-directed; the moral principle of the
utilitarian is other directed. A finer classification of
utilitarianism is based on the beneficiary of the good.
Who will benefit from the good consequences of the
act? If the consequence of the act is calculated to
benefit only a sector of the population, an interest
group or a class and, if in the process, it makes the
other sectors worse off – this version is called limited
utilitarianism. The various interest groups in our
society, family, association, religious groups, regions,
etc. are proponents of limited utilitarianism.
The contrast here is what is termed universal
utilitarianism. It is believed that this is the pure form
of utilitarianism. It is against maximizing the good
that is calculated to benefit only a small sector of
society. But maximizing the good should be extended
to all humankind without discrimination. And
everyone is counted for one and no one for more than
one.
