INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

Definition and Concepts of Ethics

Etymologically, it comes from a Greek word “ethos” that refers to:
 The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or members of a profession.
 A system of moral values, or a set of principles that determine right conduct.
 Character or customs of people or place.

The Word Ethics (pl.) means: -

- a system of moral principles of a culture

- The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a
particular group, culture, etc. e.g. Christian ethics
- Moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of confidence.
- That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with
respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions.

Ethic (sing.)

- The body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture

or group: e.g. the Christian ethic of venerating saints, the tribal ethic of the Baganda
of kneeling down when greeting elders.
- A complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual
makes a personal ethic.
- A moral principle or set of moral values held by an individual or group, eg.a puritan
ethic of religious people.

-The philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and the rules and
principles that ought to govern it; e.g. moral philosophy.

Also refers to social, religious or civil code of behavior considered correct, especially that
of a particular group, profession, or individual.

Ethics deals with judgment upon what one does through behavior or rules and interaction. It
is concerned with values related to human conduct such as truth, integrity, honesty,
responsibility, character and love. It provides a moral basis for behavior, and standards of
relationship. When we talk of “Professional ethics” we mean moral principles and rules of
conduct which every member of the profession must live up to.
The Three Aspects of Ethics
(a) Constancy: entails in those values that never change, like honesty, integrity,
transparency, accountability, confidentiality, objectivity, respectfulness, loyalty and
obedience to the law.
(b) The dynamic aspect: entails in those as values that are subject to variation according
time, place and/or condition; like rightness, goodness. What is judged as right today,
may wrong tomorrow, or somewhere else.
 (c) The Fundamental aspect: entails the values which are fundamental and essential for
any good and orderly society, such as justice and respect for others.

TOPIC 2: FOUR ETHICAL APPROACHES

(i) Virtue ethics is currently one of the major approaches in normative ethics. It may,
initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast
to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the
consequences of actions (consequentialism).

(ii) Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that emphasizes
duty. It judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is
sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics, because rules "bind you
to your duty."
(iii) Consequentialism: is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the
consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or
wrongness of that conduct.
iv) Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture,
society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

TOPIC 3: TYPES OF ETHICS: Categorizing Ethics and Morality

The field of ethics is usually broken down according to the different ways of thinking about
ethics: descriptive, normative and analytic ways of thinking.

It isn't unusual for disagreements in debates over ethics to arise because people are
approaching the topic from a different one of these three categories. Thus, learning what they
are and how to recognize them might save you some grief later.

-Descriptive Ethics: This category is the easiest to understand - it simply involves

describing how people behave and/or what sorts of moral standards they claim to follow.
Descriptive ethics incorporates research from the fields of anthropology, psychology,
sociology and history as part of the process of understanding what people do or have believed
about moral norms.

Descriptive ethics is an empirical investigation of people’s moral beliefs, i.e. descriptive

ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is
always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a
belief.

-Normative Ethics: Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of
philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one
ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it
examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions. This category of involves
creating or evaluating moral standards. Thus, it is an attempt to figure out what people
should do or whether their current moral behavior is reasonable. Traditionally, most of the
field of moral philosophy has involved normative ethics - there are few philosophers out there
who haven't tried their hand at explaining what they think people should do and why.
-Analytic Ethics (Meta-ethics): This category, analyses behavior or actions. It studies the
meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts. It explores the status,
foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. It focuses on what morality
itself is.

-Virtue Ethics: This is currently one of the major approaches in normative ethics. It may,
initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast
to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the
consequences of actions (consequentialism).

Virtue ethics is person rather than action based. It looks at the virtue or moral character of the
person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of
particular actions.

Virtue ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it provides
guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviors a good person will seek to achieve.

In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a person's life, rather than particular
episodes or actions. A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and lives
the virtues. This is a useful theory since human beings are often more interested in assessing
the character of another person than they are in assessing the goodness or badness of a
particular action.

This suggests that the way to build a good society is to help its members to be good people,
rather than to use laws and punishments to prevent or deter bad actions. But it wouldn't be
helpful if a person had to be a saint to count as virtuous. For virtue theory to be really useful
it needs to suggest only a minimum set of characteristics that a person needs to possess in
order to be regarded as virtuous. And ...being virtuous is more than having a particular habit
of acting, e.g. generosity. Rather, it means having a fundamental set of related virtues that
enable a person to live and act morally well; [James F Keenan, Proposing Cardinal Virtues,
Theological Studies, 1995].

Principles of virtue ethics

Virtue ethics teaches that:

 An action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous person would carry out in the
same circumstances.
 A virtuous person is a person who acts virtuously
 A person acts virtuously if they "possess and live the virtues"
 A virtue is a moral characteristic that a person needs to live well.

Most virtue theorists would also insist that the virtuous person is one who acts in a virtuous
way as the result of rational thought (rather than, say, instinct).

The three questions to be asked:

The modern philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre proposed three questions as being at the heart of
moral thinking:
  Who am I?
 Who ought I to become?
 How ought I to get there?

Lists of the virtues

What would a virtuous person do?

Most virtue theorists say that there is a common set of virtues that all human beings would
benefit from, rather than different sets for different sorts of people, and that these virtues are
natural to mature human beings - even if they are hard to acquire.

This poses a problem, since lists of virtues from different times in history and different
societies show significant differences.

The traditional list of cardinal virtues was:

 Prudence
 Justice
 Fortitude / Bravery
 Temperance

The modern theologian James F Keenan suggests:

 Justice: Justice requires us to treat all human beings equally and impartially.
 Fidelity: requires that we treat people closer to us with special care.
 Self care: We each have a unique responsibility to care for ourselves, affectively,
mentally, physically, and spiritually.
 Prudence: The prudent person must always consider Justice, Fidelity and Self-care.
The prudent person must always look for opportunities to acquire more of the other
three virtues.

 Good points of virtue ethics

 It centres ethics on the person and what it means to be human

 It includes the whole of a person's life

 Bad points of virtue ethics

o It doesn't provide clear guidance on what to do in moral dilemmas, although it

does provide general guidance on how to be a good person. Presumably a
totally virtuous person would know what to do and we could consider them a
suitable role model to guide us.
o There is no general agreement on what the virtues are and it may be that any
list of virtues will be relative to the culture in which it is being drawn up.

TOPIC 4: DESCRIPTIONS OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Ethics is mostly concerned with principles that guide relations: -
(i) The Principle of Beneficence (“to do good”)

- Beneficence refers to the ethical obligation to maximize benefits and to minimize harms.
The principle gives rise to norms requiring that the risks of harm be reasonable in light of
the expected benefits, that the welfare of individuals is safeguarded.

The principle of beneficence guides the ethical theory to do what is good. This priority to
"do good" makes an ethical perspective and possible solution to an ethical dilemma
acceptable. This principle is also related to the principle of utility, which states that we should
attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world.
This principle stipulates that ethical theories should strive to achieve the greatest amount of
good because people benefit from the most good.

This principle is mainly associated with the utilitarian ethical theory. An example of "doing
good" is found in the practice of medicine in which the health of an individual is bettered by
treatment from a physician. The physician treats the patient in order to cure his illness.

(ii) The Principle of the Least Harm

[Or Non-maleficence (to do no harm). The principle proscribes the deliberate infliction of
harm, or evil on some individual(s).

This is similar to beneficence, but deals with situations in which neither choice is beneficial.
In this case, a person should choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm to the fewest
people.

For instance, in the Hippocratic Oath, a physician is first charged with the responsibility to
"do no harm" to the patient since the physician's primary duty is to provide helpful treatment
to the patient rather than to inflict more suffering upon the patient.

Another example could be that a driver of a bus carrying 72 passengers could reasonably
choose to hit a crossing goat than subject all his passengers to fatal accident.

(iii) The Principle of Respect for Autonomy

Respect for persons incorporates at least two fundamental ethical considerations, namely:
respect for autonomy, which requires that those who are capable of deliberation about their
personal choices should be treated with respect for their capacity for self-determination; and
protection of persons with impaired or diminished autonomy, which requires that those who
are dependent or vulnerable be offered security against harm or abuse.

This principle states that people should be allowed to reign over themselves and to be able to
make decisions that apply to their lives. That people should have control over their lives as
much as possible because they are the only people who completely understand their chosen
type of lifestyle.

Each man deserves respect because only he has had those exact life experiences and
understands his emotions, motivations and body in such an intimate manner. In essence, this
ethical principle is an extension of the ethical principle of beneficence because a person who
is independent usually prefers to have control over his life experiences in order to obtain the
lifestyle that he enjoys.

There are, however, two ways of looking at the respect for autonomy:

(i) The paternalistic viewpoint: an authority prioritizes a dependent person's best interests
over the dependent person's wishes. For example, a patient with terminal cancer may prefer
to live the rest of her life without the medication that makes her constantly ill. The physician,
on the other hand, may convince the patient and her family members to make the patient
continue taking her medication because the medication will prolong her life. In this situation,
the physician uses his or her authority to manipulate the patient to choose the treatment that
will benefit him or her best medically. As noted in this example, one drawback of this
principle is that the paternalistic figure may not have the same ideals as the dependent person
and will deny the patient's autonomy and ability to choose her treatment. This, in turn, leads
to a decreased amount of beneficence.

(ii) The Libertarian viewpoint: This standpoint prioritizes the patient's wishes over their best
interests. This means that the patient has control over her life and should be content with her
quality of life because she has chosen the path of life with the greatest amount of personal
beneficence. Although this viewpoint is more mindful of the patient's desires, it does not
prevent the patient from making decisions that may be more harmful than beneficial.

(iv) The Principle of Justice

This is the ethical obligation to treat each person in accordance with what is morally right
and proper, to give each person what is due to him or her. In ethics the principle refers
primarily to distributive justice, which requires the fair and equitable distribution of both the
burdens and the benefits to individuals.

One classical philosophical conception of justice is that justice is determined by the

implementation of equality. That Justice is treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
This is theoretically sweet, but in practice it may be as confusing as it is abstract. The
question is on how to determine who are equals and are unequals? This brings in the notion
of merit and desert. It is then claimed that those who merit the same thing are equal. If one
merits something and another does not then the two are unequal. The same can be said of
desert.

In general, justice can be understood as meaning: To give each one his or her due. Another
way of understanding justice is to think about the dignity of the human person. Justice is
present when people are treated according to their God-given dignity. Injustice is present
when people are treated in a way that is contrary to their dignity. Where there is no justice,
there is no peace.

Types of Justice

People seek justice when they are wronged. The types of justice that they seek range from
distributive justice to social justice.
Distributive justice: Distributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness in
what people receive, from goods to attention. Its roots are in social order and it is at the roots
of socialism, where equality is a fundamental principle.

If people do not think that they are getting their fair share of something, they will seek first to
gain what they believe they deserve. They may well also seek other forms of justice.

Distributive justice demands that all citizens have a right to participate in or play a part in
society. In order to make that possible, distributive also demands that the public goods of a
country are used to satisfy the minimum or basic needs of all people, especially the under
privileged. It is a kind of justice which is present when the citizens are encouraged to
participate in society and when the money from the natural resources and the taxes of a
country are used to provide all the citizens with their minimum or basic needs.

An example of this kind of justice can be seen in countries where the government encourages
the citizens to participate in or be active in society. In order to make it possible for all to
participate in society, the government uses money from taxes and the natural resources (for
example, oil. Or minerals) to provide the necessary social services so that the basic needs are
satisfied.

Commutative Justice exists when the people make private engagements or contracts and keep
them. If both parties do what they agree to do, there is commutative justice. For example; a
farmer agrees to sell good quality maize at a definite price to a trader. If the farmer gives the
trader the good quality maize and the trader pays the farmer the agreed price, them then there
is commutative justice. However, if the farmer sells the trader poor maize, or if the trader
fails to pay the agreed price, then there is an offence against commutative justice.

Procedural justice: The principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (as opposed
to the fair share of distributive justice).

If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what is to be distributed, then they
may well accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison to others. If they see both
procedural and distributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive
justice.

Restorative justice: The first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer is
some form of restitution, putting things back as they should be.

The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward apology. Restoration means putting

things back as they were, so it may include some act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly
sorry. This may include action and even extra payment to the offended party. Restorative
justice is also known as corrective justice.

Retributive justice: Retributive justice works on the principle of punishment, although what
constitutes fair and proportional punishment is widely debated. While the intent may be to
dissuade the perpetrator or others from future wrong-doing, the re-offending rate of many
criminals indicates the limited success of this approach.

Punishment in practice is more about the satisfaction of victims and those who care about
them. This strays into the realm of revenge, which can be many times more severe than
reparation as the hurt party seeks to make the other person suffer in return. In such cases
'justice' is typically defined emotionally rather that with intent for fairness or prevention.

If you are the wrong-doer and others are seeking justice against you, seek first to ensure
distributive justice.

A question may be asked why people are put in prison. If it is to prevent them re-offending,
then it is restorative justice. If it is to punish them, then it is retributive justice. Sadly, this has
proven a poor method of prevention.

Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights
and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for
everyone, particularly those in greatest need. Social justice demands that government
provides citizens with personal protection for their property. This type of justice requires that
the government provides the citizens with a good police force, an army and a just legal
system in the courts.

An example if this type of justice can be seen in the countries where the government has a
police force that protects the citizens and their property from thieves and robbers. However,
there is a violation of social justice when police demand bribes from citizens, or where there
is injustice in the courts of law. Another example of a violation of social justice can be seen
on countries where soldiers and police torture or unjustly treat citizens in order to force them
to make statements or confessions about suspected or alleged crimes. Social justice also
requires citizens to pay government taxes. The money that the government collects from
these taxes is required to pay for the services that are necessary to protect the citizens.

So what? : If you have been wronged, consider carefully what kind of justice you are really
seeking!

Assignment: Let the student do write a paper on the different types of justice. Give
and explain in detail and with examples, the various types of justice.

TOPIC 5: DESCRIPTIONS OF ETHICAL THEORIES

Ethical theories are based on the previously explained ethical principles. They each
emphasize different aspects of an ethical dilemma and lead to the most ethically correct
resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. People usually base
their individual choice of ethical theory upon their life experiences.

(1) Deontology

The deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties
when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow his or her
obligations to another individual or society because upholding one's duty is what is
considered ethically correct. For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a
friend and will follow the law. A person who follows this theory will produce very consistent
decisions since they will be based on the individual's set duties.

Deontology provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as
those within one's family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation to protect his
little sister when they cross a busy road together. Likewise, parents have the duty to care for
their children. The army has the duty to protect the state and the police have the duty to keep
law and order.

This theory also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties and obligations, which is
called "supererogation". For example, if a person hijacked a train full of students and stated
that one person would have to die in order for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to
die is exceeding his or her duty to the other students and performs an act of supererogation.

Although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number of
flaws or weaknesses:

(a) There is no rational or logical basis for deciding an individual's duties. For instance,
businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although
this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his
duty. Perhaps the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to
sit in the same chair.

(b)A similar scenario unearths two other faults of deontology including the fact that
sometimes a person's duties conflict and that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of
others. For instance, if the deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how
is he supposed to drive? Is the deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to
uphold the law, or is the deontologist supposed to arrive at his meeting late, breaking his duty
to be on time? This scenario of conflicting obligations does not lead us to a clear ethically
correct resolution nor does it protect the welfare of others from the deontologist's decision.

Since deontology is not based on the context of each situation, it does not provide any
guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting obligations.

Deontological Ethics
Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality
of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is sometimes described as
"duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."
It assesses what ought to be done. It is opposed to consequentialism which emphasizes
benefits that result from the moral choices and actions. Deontology maintains that the ethics
of an action does not depend the consequences but on the act itself. And that the morality of
actions depends on their conformity to moral norms.
Contrary to utilitarian ethics, which emphasizes benefits or happiness that results from the
moral choices and actions), deontological ethics maintains that ‘ethics of an action does not
depend on the consequences but on the act itself.
It emphasizes that the morality of actions depends on their conformity to moral norms. It is a
duty to obey the moral law. Thus, things that are done should be inherently good; e.g. telling
the truth and doing justice.
Doing the right thing has the priority over doing good and as long as an action is right, it
should be done regardless of the consequences. Therefore, doing the right thing is a duty/ an
obligation and is mandatory depending on one’s placement in life.
Each moral agent has the obligation to define his/her duty in each situation and do it
regardless of the consequences. Fulfillment of duty should be guided by the principle of
consistency, “do to others what you would want them do unto you”. Each one should
implement his/duty with commitment and integrity. Deontological ethics should be promoted
through good working conditions. Deontological ethics demands that there should be:
 A culture of ethical responsibility and accountability
 Professional code of conduct
 Clear and enforceable systems of rewards, sanctions and punishment of ethical
and unethical behavior.
Duty is associated with responsibility, accountability, dependency and control of others. It
well refers to acting with due care, diligence and respect not only to oneself but with
extension to others. Duty is a cardinal and overwhelming driving force that has to be adhered
to by organizations and societies to function properly, cohesively and without conflict.
Accordingly, there are seven features that constitute a moral action:-
(i) The duty of beneficence – to help others.
(ii) The duty of non-maleficence – to avoid harming other people.
(iii) The duty of justice – to ensure that people get what they deserve.
(iv) The duty of self-improvement – to improve others.
(v) The duty of reparation – to compensate someone if you have acted wrongly
towards them
(vi) The duty of gratitude – to benefit people who have benefited us.
(vii) The duty to keep promises – to act according to the explicit and implicit promises,
e.g. telling the truth.

In this regard, duty here means obligation or responsibility, which when accomplished, help
individuals to act fairly and impartially with justice. These are virtues expected of them as
leaders and members of society.

(2) Utilitarianism (Utilitarian theory)

Is an ethical theory which explains the rightness of human actions by considering their
consequences. The position is that whether or not an action is right or wrong depends on the
consequences of the action. These consequences are weighed in terms of who gains and who
loses by the action. In the standard form, utilitarianism is the ethical view that an action is
right if its consequence is for the benefit of the greatest number of people possible and wrong
if the consequence is for the benefit of just a few people. The greatest number of people
possible means the highest number of people or at least the majority of people in the society.
It means that if we have two alternative actions to choose from, then the one whose outcome
will benefit more people is the right action and the other is wrong.

The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an
action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the
choice that is ethically correct. One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can
compare similar predicted solutions and use a point system to determine which choice is
more beneficial for more people. This point system provides a logical and rational argument
for each decision and allows a person to use it on a case-by-case context.

There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism:

(a) Act utilitarianism: which adheres exactly to the definition of utilitarianism as

described in the above section. In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts
that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal
constraints such as laws.
(b) Rule utilitarianism, which takes into account the law and is concerned with
fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest
and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are
that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time.

As with all ethical theories, however, both act and rule utilitarianism contains numerous
flaws:-

(i) Inherent in both are the flaws associated with predicting the future. Although people can
use their life experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that
his predictions will be true. This uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the
utilitarian look unethical as time passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as
he predicted.

For example, if a person lights a fire in a fireplace in order to warm his friends, and then the
fire burns down the house because the soot in the chimney caught on fire, then the utilitarian
now seems to have chosen an unethical decision. The unexpected house fire is judged as
unethical because it did not benefit his friends.

(ii) Another assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to compare the
various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. However, comparing
material gains such as money against intangible gains such as happiness is impossible since
their qualities differ to such a large extent.

(iii)A third failing found in utilitarianism is that it does not allow for heroism. In other words,
people are obligated to constantly behave so that the most people benefit regardless of the
danger associated with an act. For instance, a utilitarian who sacrifices his life to fight at the
front line is actually fulfilling an obligation to the state rather than performing a selfless and
appraisable act. People often say that that “no wonder, it the duty of the army to fight!”

As explained above, act utilitarianism is solely concerned with achieving the maximum good.
According to this theory an individual's rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a
greater population. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice,
beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution
that benefits a majority of people. Another source of instability within act utilitarianism is
apparent when a utilitarian faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences
a change in those variables that causes her to change her original decision. This means that an
act utilitarian could be nice to you one moment and then dislike you the next moment because
the variables have changed, and you are no longer beneficial to the most people.

(iv) Rule utilitarianism also contains a source of instability that inhibits its usefulness. In rule
utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Let us revisit the example of a
person running late for his meeting. While a rule utilitarian who just happens to be a state
governor may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time
because the members of the state government will benefit from this decision, he may
encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he is running late. As a rule
utilitarian, he believes that he should follow the law because this benefits an entire society,
but at the same time, he believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting
because it is a state government meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no
ethically correct answer for this scenario.

(3) Rights Theory

In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest
priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling
population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they have the
ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow the
car for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now has a right
to the car in the afternoon.

A major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must decipher
what the characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it
wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it
wants to enact, it must decide what the society's goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in
order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical
theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. For example in America people
have the right to choose their religion because this right is upheld in the Constitution. One of
the goals of the founding fathers' of America was to uphold this right to freedom of religion.
However, under Hitler's reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted for their religion
because Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany's future success. The
American government upholds freedom of religion while the Nazi government did not uphold
it and, instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion and those who practiced it. [See
Appendix on Human Rights]

(4) Casuist Theory

The casuist ethical theory is one that compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of
similar ethical dilemmas and their outcomes. This allows one to determine the severity of the
situation and to create the best possible solution according to others' experiences. Usually one
will find paradigms that represent the extremes of the situation so that a compromise can be
reached that will hopefully include the wisdom gained from the previous examples.
One drawback to this ethical theory is that there may not be a set of similar examples for a
given ethical dilemma. Perhaps that which is controversial and ethically questionable is new
and unexpected. Along the same line of thinking, a casuistical theory also assumes that the
results of the current ethical dilemma will be similar to results in the examples. This may not
be necessarily true and would greatly hinder the effectiveness of applying this ethical theory.

(5) Virtue Theory

The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action that may
deviate from his normal behavior. It takes the person's morals, reputation and motivation
into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical.

Example: Take a case of a respectable gentleman in the village, rich and generous. It will be
hard for people to believe that this man is guilty of stealing a chicken if one day he is accused
of stealing. Because people will not believe it as they will judge him as always virtuous
person (impeccable, in whom there is no guilt). One weakness of this ethical theory is that it
does not take into consideration a person's change in moral character.

(6) Teleology (Teleological Ethics)

Teleological ethics, (teleological from Greek teleos, “end”; logos, “science”), theory of
morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be
achieved. Also known as consequentialist ethics, it is opposed to deontological ethics (from
the Greek deon, “duty”), which holds that the basic standards for an action’s being morally
right are independent of the good or evil generated.

 Teleological ethics is an essential theory that holds that the end or consequence of an
act determines whether an acts good or evil.
 Teleological theories are often discussed in opposition to deontological ethical
theories which hold that the act themselves are inherently good or evil regardless of
consequences of acts.

(7) Hedonism: teaches that the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence, pleasure-seeking,
self gratification, lotus-eating, high living is the highest good and proper aim of human life.
They feel that television promotes hedonism among all its viewers.

(8) Eudaimonism (or Eudaemonism or Eudaimonia) is a moral philosophy that defines

right action as that which leads to the "well-being" of the individual, thus holding "well-
being" as having essential value. It makes up part of the system of virtue ethics propounded
by the ancient Greek philosphers, in which a lifetime of practicing the virtues ("arête") in
one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of practical wisdom ("phronesis") to
resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise, will allow the individual to flourish
and live the good life ("eudaimonia").

The term "eudaimonia" is a classical Greek word, commonly translated as "happiness", but
perhaps better described as "well-being" or "human flourishing" or "good life". More
literally it means "having a good guardian spirit". Eudaimonia as the ultimate goal is an
objective, not a subjective, state, and it characterizes the well-lived life, irrespective of the
emotional state of the person experiencing it.

In more general terms, Eudaimonism can be thought of as any theory that puts personal
happiness and the complete life of the individual at the center of ethical concern. It can
therefore be associated with ethical Individualism and Egoism.

Topic 6: SITUATION ETHICS (CONTEXTUALISM)

Situation ethics holds that: “The right thing to do depends on the situation”.
-In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation.

-There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique
solution. -Situation ethics rejects “prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules” and as
Dewey & Tufts said, “...reflective morality demands observation of particular situations,
rather than fixed adherence to a priori principles (John Dewey and James H. Tufts, Ethics,
1922).

Situation ethics teaches that ethical decisions should follow flexible guidelines rather than
absolute rules, and be taken on a case by case basis.

So a person who practices situation ethics approaches ethical problems with some general
moral principles rather than a rigorous set of ethical laws and is prepared to give up even
those principles if doing so will lead to a greater good.

Since 'circumstances alter cases', situation ethics holds that in practice what in some times
and places we call right is in other times and places wrong. For example, lying is ordinarily
not in the best interest of interpersonal communication and social integrity, but is justifiable
nevertheless in certain situations. [Joseph Fletcher, Naturalism, situation ethics and value
theory, in Ethics at the Crossroads, 1995].

Situation ethics was originally devised in a Christian context, but it can easily be applied in a
non-religious way.

Characteristics elements of situation ethics

The elements (characteristics) of situation ethics were described by Joseph Fletcher, its
leading modern proponent, like this:

 (a) Moral judgments are decisions, not conclusions.

o Decisions ought to be made situationally, not prescriptively.

o We should seek the well-being of people, rather than love principles.
o Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love: nothing else. Love, in this
context, means desiring and acting to promote the wellbeing of people.
o Nothing is inherently good or evil, except love (personal concern) and its
opposite, indifference or actual malice. Nothing is good or bad except as it helps
or hurts persons
o The highest good is human welfare and happiness (but not, necessarily, pleasure)
 o Whatever is most loving in a situation is right and good, but not merely something
to be excused as a lesser evil.
o Love "wills the neighbor’s good" [desires the best for our neighbor] whether we
like them or not.

o The ultimate norm of Christian (moral) decisions is love: nothing else.

o The radical obligation of the Christian (moral) ethic to love even the enemy
implies unmistakably that every neighbor is not a friend and that some are just
the opposite.
 (b) Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed
o Love and justice both require acts of will
o Love and justice are not properties of actions, they are things that people either
do or don't do
o Love and justice are essentially the same
o Justice is Christian love (morality) using its head and calculating its duties.
The Christian love ethic, searching seriously for a social policy, forms a
coalition with the utilitarian principle of the 'greatest good of the greatest
number.'
 (c) The rightness depends on many factors
o The rightness of an action does not reside in the act itself but in the loving
configuration of the factors in the situation--in the 'elements of a human act' --
i.e., its totality of end, means, motive, and foreseeable consequences.

[The text above is based on material in Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work, by
Joseph Fletcher; Westminster Press, 1967].

 Good points of situation ethics

It is personal: Situation ethics is a personal approach. It is sensitive to circumstances,

context, particularity, and cultural traditions. Every moral decision is required to demonstrate
respect for individuals and communities and the things that they regard as valuable. This
avoids the logical, detached, impersonal ways of thinking that some people think are
overemphasized in some other forms of ethics.

(i) It is particular: Because moral decisions are treated on a case-by-case basis, the decision
is always tailored to particular situations.

(ii) It is based on doing good: Situation ethics teaches that right acts are those motivated by
the wish to promote the well-being of people.

 Bad points of situation ethics

By the 1970s, situation ethics had been roundly rejected as no ethics at all...[Daniel
Callahan, Universalism & Particularism, The Hastings Center Report, 2000]

(i) It excludes most universal moral truths: By doing this it seems to remove any
possibility of guaranteeing universal human rights, and satisfying human needs for a useful
ethical framework for human behavior.
(ii) It is not clear what 'love' means: Although the notion of love used in situation ethics
seems attractive, it's pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

(iii) It is difficult to implement: Situation ethics seems to be little more than a form of act
consequentialism, in that a person can only choose the right thing to do if they consider all
the consequences of their possible action, and all the people who may be affected.

(iv) It can not produce consistent results: Situation ethics produces a lack of consistency
from one situation to the next. It may be both easier, and more just and loving, to treat similar
situations similarly - thus situation ethics should not be treated as a free-for-all, but should
look for precedents while continuing to reject rigid ethical rules.

(v) It may approve of 'evil' acts: Situation ethics teaches that particular types of action don't
have an inherent moral value - whether they are good or bad depends on the eventual result.
So it seems that situation ethics permits a person to carry out acts that are generally regarded
as bad, such as killing and lying, if those acts lead to a sufficiently good result.

This is an uncomfortable conclusion, but one that affects other ethical theories as well.
Moreover, it does seem to be accepted in certain situations. As an obvious example, killing
people is generally regarded as bad, but is viewed as acceptable in some cases of self defence.

Conclusion: Most traditional moral theories rest on principles that determine whether an
action is right or wrong.

TOPIC 7: AUTHORITY IN MORAL JUDGEMENT

The real purpose of this section is to reveal the common standards people use in taking moral
stands and where making ethical decisions in the societies they live in. The second purpose
is to expose the strength and weakness of the ethical choices based purely on such standards
and in the end to introduce the criterion of reason as the ultimate standards in ethical
judgements.

Authority is very important in ethical judgements that people make in their daily lives.
Authority here means a criterion or a scale on the basis of which we may say of any action,
or a person that it is or he is good, right, wrong etc...

The Basic Idea of Value

Ethics deals with the estimation of actions as good or bad, right or wrong. When we judge an
action as good or bad, right or wrong, we are said to be valuing it. Ethical judgements are
therefore called judgements of value, or simply value judgements. However, not all value
judgements are of the ethical type. For example, when we use the terms good or bad broadly
to express our approval or our disapproval of a football team or a pair of shoes or even a
work of art, we usually do not confuse these judgements with the ethical valuation of actions
as good or bad like we have seen above in the cases of abortion and murder.

An Ethical Judgement

An ethical term is a term such as good, bad, right or wrong. An ethical judgement is a
statement containing at least one ethical term. Statements such as, ‘Virtue is the chief good in
human life’ or ‘Pleasure is the only thing which is good as an end in itself’, are ethical
judgements. More practically, one could also make claims such as ‘Childlessness is a great
misfortune’, or Disobedience to one’s father is a vice’.

The important question here is, according to what standard(s) do we make such judgements?
In other words, on what authority do we make ethical judgements?

1. Intuition as Authority

There is some inborn ability or force which everyone seems to have. This ability enables a
person to act independently of the relevant knowledge he may need as he embarks on an
action.

There are people who are well able for example, to form a correct opinion about strangers as
they meet them for the first time. What enables such people to form such correct opinions
about strangers is intuition which is the inborn ability or force that man has for making
decisions.
Imagine that you are walking alone unarmed in a bush and you come across an animal you
have never seen before. You will wonder whether to avoid the animal or approach it and
study it. The animal may be dangerous or it may be friendly. Whether you avoid it by
running away or approach it to learn more about it will depend on how your intuition guides
you.

Intuition is closely connected with instinct. Instinct is a kind of mental ability most animals
(including man) have for accommodating themselves in their environment and reacting to
strange situations.

It is possible for a person to face his actions only on intuition and instinct. But in the modern
world there are many other means people have to guide their actions. For example, we have
customs, laws, reason and science.

It is, however, possible for a person to maintain that the correct or best ethical or moral
judgement should be based on one’s intuition. This then would mean that the best morality
must be the one that is guided by intuition and instinct.

There was a French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 -1778) who argued that man
is naturally good, but he is made corrupt and evil by civilization. According to Rousseau, the
natural man, unspoiled by customs, laws, reason or science is innocent and good. The natural
man, according to Rousseau’s thesis, creates his morality on the basis of intuition and
instinct.

This, in, practice, means that when, for example, someone says that ‘Pleasure is the chief
good’, he says so because his intuition or instinct and nothing else convinces him that
pleasure is the chief good.

In contrast to Jean Jacques Rousseau, another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (an English
philosopher, 1588-1678) argued that man is naturally selfish. According to Hobbes, life in a
state of nature is ‘brutish and short’. In a state of nature man cares only for his own appetite
and every man seeks only his own good. The outcome is chaos and struggle for existence. In
order to avoid the chaos of the state of nature, man founded laws and a civil state.
Hobbes’ position is the opposite of that taken by Rousseau. It is a position which rejects
intuition or instinct as authority in ethical judgement.

Rousseau’s most famous book is Social Contract and Hobbes is best known through his
equally famous book Leviathan.

2. Customs as Authority

Another possible standard for ethical judgement would be customs or a body of traditions. If
customs become the standard, then it follows that when we make any ethical judgement
customs are the ultimate justification for our judgement. Consider the following moral
judgement.

‘It is wrong for a widow to take the entire responsibility of burying the body of her dead
husband’.

One possible justification for the above judgement would be that the customs of that
particular ethnic group are against a widow taking alone the responsibility of burying her
dead husband.

Customs need not always be ancient habits. Customs can also be rules of life in modern
society. Consider the following judgement.

‘It is right to teach mothers the evil of unplanned birth’.

The above ethical judgement can very well be defended on the basis of what is known in the
life of mothers in modern Uganda. Uganda is currently developing the custom of planning
the births of children in families.

When customs become the standard in ethical judgement, then we say that the judgements we
make are right-as a matter of practice. Out actions or decisions are judged right or wrong
because they are in line with what we have been practicing for a long time or conform with
what we generally practice.

Interestingly, the term morals come from the Latin word which means customs. Similarly,
the term Ethics is originally the Greek term for customs.

Social Pressure, Taboos, Religion and Coercion as means of enforcing Moral Rules
based on Customs

Rules and customs are generally enforced, i.e. people are made to obey them by various
means. One means is that of social pressure. A person who disobeys a rule or custom might
find himself facing pressure from various persons demanding that he should conform to the
rule.

Another means comes from taboos. People are restrained from certain actions because such
actions are though to bring or cause misfortune. Religion can also be used for making people
conform to certain customs or rules.
3- CONSCIENCE AS AUTHORITY1
Each one of us is born with a sense of what is right and wrong. However, without proper
knowledge you could end up forming a bad or a malformed conscience. Therefore to live a
richer, peaceful, and a more moral life each one of us is obligated to know more than what we
know now in order to determine whether our present way of thinking is truly correct or not.

1
Conscience is that moral faculty of man which tells him subjectively what is good and evil
and which manifests his moral obligation. A distinction must be made between conscience as
moral faculty, which manifests to man his obligation and impels him to fulfill it, and
conscience as practical moral judgment which tells man in the concrete situation.

Conscience is that faculty which makes known to man his moral obligations and urges him to
fulfill them. It is not primarily theoretical scientific knowledge of moral values of good and
evil, but it shows man how what his nature and divine spirit require of him individually as his
personal obligation and leads him to perceive the binding force of these requirements. Not
only the requirements of nature but also the divine spirit and manifested by the influence of
grace.

Conscience as practical judgment: The faculty of conscience goes into action when the
morality of concrete line of conduct, which a person wants to follow or has followed, and the
moral obligation in the concrete situation, are to be judged. The moral faculty then,
formulates a judgment, which is called the dictate of conscience or also simply conscience.
Conscience in this sense is defined as a judgment of the practical reason on the morality of a
concrete action commanding to do what is good and avoid what is evil. In most cases this
concrete action is not reflexive but spontaneous.

The judgment of conscience is expressly reflected upon especially in the instances of doubt or
of resistance and disobedience to the dictates of conscience. Conscience is called a judgment
of practical reason in contradistinction to a judgment of speculative intellect. The first
concerns the person’s concrete action in a concrete situation; the second formulates the
general moral principles concerning the morality of human actions in the abstract without
relation to the concrete activity of a person here and now.

The dictate of conscience contains double element. The first element is the judgment on the
morality of a concrete action which a person intends to perform or has performed, or which
he intends to omit or has omitted. This judgment can be erroneous because conscience may
judge a line of conduct to be right which is objectively wrong or vice versa. The second
element is the command and obligation that what has been recognized as good must be done
and what has been recognized as evil must be omitted. This obligation is categorical. It is not
always right to follow it, but it is obligatory to do so.

Division of Conscience:
Conscience can be antecedent or consequent. It is called antecedent if the judgment on the
morality of an action and the obligation to perform or to omit it is passed before the action is
translated into reality. The antecedent conscience commands, exhorts, permits, or forbids.
Conscience is called consequent if it evaluates a deed already done or omitted. The
Failure to seek knowledge is also a failure in our obligation to develop a healthy conscience.
This will consequently lead us into committing the sin of omission - not doing what we are
obliged or required to do.

What is conscience?

-The inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one
towards right action.

-The complex of moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an
individual.

-An inhibiting sense of what is prudent (eg. I would take another bottle of beer but my
conscience would bother me

Conscience is from the Latin word “conscientia” which means “privity of knowledge” or
“with knowledge”. The more popular understanding of conscience is that it is an inner feeling
or voice acting as guide whether a behavior or an act is right or wrong. Conscience however
is more than that.

In Ethics, conscience is not just a by-product of processes like religious teachings, parental
guidance, or indoctrination from groups like your peers, your school, or the workplace.
Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, believes that people have an inborn sense of
right and wrong.

Kinds of conscience

i. Antecedent conscience: This is the judgment or how a person balances his decision
regarding a situation before making any action. Antecedent conscience approves, commands,
advices, warns, or permits doing the act.

ii. Consequent conscience: This is the judgment of the mind or how the mind sees the
morality of an action done. Consequent conscience either approves the act thus promoting a
sense of peace, wellbeing, and spiritual joy. On the other hand it could also disapprove an act
resulting to feelings of remorse or guilt.

iii. True conscience: This is the kind of conscience where the mind makes correct moral
judgment on an act that was done. True conscience is that the mind gives the correct
subjective judgment of how an act is morally good or morally bad corresponding with the
facts of that particular act.

iv. Erroneous conscience: A conscience is erroneous when it represents or describes the

moral aspect of an act incorrectly for example justifying stealing because you used the money
to buy medicine for your sick mother. A conscience is also erroneous when it takes a morally

consequent conscience approves excuses, reproves or accuses.

Conscience can be right or erroneous according as the practical moral judgment agrees or
disagrees with the objective norms of morality, [see Henry Pesche (1977), vol. II; pp. 147 ff.
good act and presents it as something bad. An example of this is making sinners out Catholics
for having saints, holy images, and all the traditions that non-Catholics do not believe in and
thus make judgement that these traditions are sinful.

v. Certain conscience: This is a type of conscience where the state of mind is absolutely sure
without a trace of doubt in its judgment of what is morally right or wrong in specific issues.
Certain conscience is when the person within himself is one hundred percent convinced
backed with moral norms that an act is either good or bad.

vi. Doubtful conscience: This is a state of mind when it cannot decide with certainty whether
an action or behavior is good or bad leaving you unsure of what to do or not having any
peace of mind after performing a certain action.
vii. Scrupulous conscience: Constantly afraid of committing evil. It is a result of stubborn
character. It is also way of thinking where the mind constantly sees an act to be morally
wrong or interpreting a venial sin to be a mortal sin which results in having feelings of
torment and guilt for no good reason.

viii. Lax conscience: Lax denotes something that is lenient or loose. A lax conscience would
then signify as having a poor sense of what is morally right or morally wrong. This is a state
of mind that tends to select the easy way out and make excuses for mistakes.

ix. Timorous or tender conscience: A state of mind that is constantly in fear not only of
sinning but for whatever it is that may cast at the very least a shadow of sin.
x. Guilty conscience: Disturbed conscience trying to restore good relations with God by
means of sorrow and repentance.

Conclusion
In making moral judgement, some people use their own conscience as the standard.
Conscience is some innate feeling which directs one’s will and conduct. Conscience needs to
be distinguished from intuition, customs and reason. Intuition relies on instinct and is often
difficult to express in words. Conscience is expressible in words. One can say; “I consider
inter-racial marriage wrong because it goes against my conscience”. When forced to explain
himself further, he might explain his conscience as follows:

“I conceive marriage as a means of continuing or traditional society and ensuring the purity
of our peoples”.

This indicates clearly that the person has an innate feeling that mixed races are undesirable.
We do not have to agree with him. But it is important to recognize his conscience.

Conscience differs from customs in that conscience is usually personal while customs are
generally public.

Conscience differs from reason in that it is more instinctual or intuitional than logical.
Perhaps we should say that conscience lies between intuition and reason.

Summary
All human beings are keen on justifying their ethical judgements by referring to such
authorities as: intuition, instinct, customs, social rules and practices and conscience.

Philosophers have varied theories about the natural goodness of man. Rousseau proposes that
man is naturally good and that it is society that corrupts him.

Hobbes maintains that man is essentially selfish and that instinct and intuition cannot be
considered as safe guides in ethical or social judgements.
Conscience, unlike intuition, can be explained and defended. It is more closely associated
with instinct and intuition than with logic.

ACTIVITY

Two equally qualified persons apply for the same position in a certain firm. Which of the
following conditions would be the prospective employer be justified to consider in making
his choice:-

(a) The candidate’s ethnic group, appearance, personal wealth, marital status, or
(b) The employer’s own instinct, remembering he has been one of the candidates in his
own church.
(c) Compose a letter in which the employer justifies his choice.

4- REASON AS AUTHORITY

Definition of Reason
When we argue, not only in ethics but in any other field, we employ reasoning which falls
into two broad divisions. These are known as:
(a) Deductive Reasoning, and
(b) Inductive reasoning.

Reason as Deductive Inference

One well established form of reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning a
conclusion is drawn from statements which in themselves are universally accepted. For
instance:

(a) All men are mortal

Kwame Nkrumah is a man;
Therfore, Kwame Mkurmah is mortal.

(b) Virtue is good,

Giving alms is a virtue
Therefore, giving alms is good.
You will notice that statements one and two in the first example are what we call universally
accepted statements. It is universally accepted that all men are mortal and that Kwame
Mkurmah is or was a man. Most people accept that virtue is good. Again giving alms is
usually considered virtuous but there are some people who may consider it wasteful or of
such a nature as to encourage laziness and vagrancy. If either the first or the second statement
is used in deductive reasoning (they are referred to as Premises) is unacceptable, then the
entire conclusion reached is also to be rejected.

It is important to note that the conclusions of both 1(a) and 1(b) above are derived from the
two preceding premises. The conclusions reached are themselves certain, provided their
respective premises are true. This is to say that if we assume that it true all men are mortal
and Kwame Nkrumah is a man, then it is certain that Kwame Nkrumah is mortal. And again
if we assume that virtues are good and giving alms is a virtue, then it is certain that giving
alms is good. Reasoning or argument of the types shown is Deductive reasoning.

The important point to note is that the conclusions of deductive reasoning, if correctly drawn,
are certain. They differ from conclusions of inductive reasoning which are only probable but
not certain.

Reason as Inductive Inference

In inductive reasoning, we move from the general to the particular. We move, foe example,
from “All men are mortal” (general) to “Some man (Kwame Nkrumah) “is mortal”
(particular. In inductive reasoning we move from particular(s) to the general, from the sample
to the population as follows:

(a) The goats that I have seen have four legs,

Therefore, all goats have four legs;

(b) Adam is a liar; he is also an evil person;

Boaz is a liar; he is also an evil person
Church is a liar; he is also an evil person;
Therefore, all liars are evil persons.

What flaws can you detect in the inference reached in both cases 2(a) and 2(b) above?

Reasoning in Ethics
We may come to hold a moral view or make an ethical judgment as a result of reasoning
either deductively or inductively. If our reasoning process is deductive thwn it means that
there are given principles which we hold to be absolutely true and we derive our moral views
and judgments from those principles.

One could take the following two examples of what some may take to be universally
acceptable principle.

Weakness of Inductive reasoning

When we reason inductively, infer a general conclusion on the basis of the particular
instances we have observed or can imagine. Consider the following statement:
Over smoking is bad because it kills all its victims.

The above statement is reached inductively after having observed a number of over smokers
die as a result of their habit. As inductive conclusion, it can only be probable. Since it is true
that we have not witnessed the death of all victims of over smoking, we cannot be absolutely
certain that over smoking kills all its victims.
Reason as authority
As authority in moral or ethical judgment, reason requires that we base the ethical views or
beliefs we hold on rational considerations. In the history of ethics many thinkers have tried to
use the process of reasoning to establish principles on which we can rationally base all our
ethical judgments. Some thinkers have taken concepts to be good in themselves (i.e. good as
an end not means) and then suggested that we should use such standards in ethical judgment.

Good as an End
One possible rational stand in ethics is that Faith in one’s God or religion or country is good
as an end. It is then possible to take this as the criterion for judging what is good and what is
bad. This means that you accept what promotes the interest of your faith is good while that
which demotes that interest is bad.

Another possible rational stand is that knowledge is the only thing good in itself, and so
anything good must promote knowledge. Power, Pleasure and Honour are also concepts that
some thinkers have taken as good in themselves.

Any thinking person may decide what he accepts as the good on which to base ethical
judgments. Select among the following, the principle you accept as your guiding criterion in
ethical judgments: Faith, Knowledge, Power, Pleasure, or Honour.

Authority in Ethics as an Academic discipline

We should differentiate between (i) ethics as conventional morals, and (ii) ethics as a
philosophical inquiry into morals.

In the first case, the term Ethics is equated with the term morality and, therefore, morality is a
system of conventional rules that guide the conduct of people in society. It is in this case that
any one of such things as instinct, customs and conscience, is used authority in ethical
judgement.

Ethics as a philosophical inquiry into morals is an academic activity. In this case, only reason
becomes the authority in ethical judgments. Philosophers of ethics have throughout the
history of the subject differed while providing us with the ways of knowing what is ethically
good, right or obligatory as an end in itself. But they practically all agree that reason is the
authority in Ethics as an academic inquiry. Yet, there were, and still are philosophers who
think otherwise.

We should perhaps, at this juncture refer to the British philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776)
whose position was that in ethics, reason is always at the service of passion. Hume’s position
may be interpreted to mean (wrongly) that in ethics, passion or emotion is the ultimate
authority. That may be so in “Ethics as morality” but not in ethics as a branch of Philosophy.
As a branch of Philosophy, reason is the authority in Ethics.

Summary
Ethics as a behavioral guide can be considered as another term for morality. Intuition,
customs and conscience can then be said to be man’s criteria in his judgments and decisions.
Ethics as an academic discipline relies entirely on reason to guide its course.
Reason can draw reliable conclusions by means of deductive inference which follows the
laying down of universally accepted premises; the first on which is general and the second
particular and included in the general one. Conclusions reached from inductive reasoning are
far from certain because we proceed from particular cases to generals statements.

TOPIC 8: NATURAL MORAL LAW AND HUMAN LAW

NATURAL MORAL LAW

Natural moral law is that law of human conduct which arises from human nature as ordered
to its natural end and which is recognized by the natural light of reason.

Concept

- Natural moral law is that moral order which man can recognize in the nature of beings
by means of his reason, independent of positive divine revelation.
- It is that moral order which arises from the full reality of human nature (as possessed
by all mankind) and which can be recognized by man’s reason, independent of
positive religious revelation. It also comprises all the ends designed in the physical,
psychical and spiritual inclinations and aspirations of human nature, inclusive of the
ultimate end. The following comprise the existential human ends;- self prevention,
body integrity, social respect, personal honor, self-perfection physically and
spiritually including the development of one’s faculties for the improvement of the
conditions of life and provision for one’s economic welfare by securing the necessary
proper or income, enlargement of experience and knowledge, procreation and
education of children, material welfare of others, peace and order.

Properties of the natural moral law

-Universality of natural law

-Immutable
-Dynamic
-Indispensable
The natural moral law binds every person and at all times and in all places for it is the very
nature people. In its essential characteristics it is common to all. All are called to attain the
same final goal and to respect the same final goal and to respect the same existential ends in
essentially the same way, even if this way presents a varied picture in the details of its
realization.

No one is free from the obligation of fulfilling this duty, no one is superior to the guide-lines
which show him the way to it; no one is beyond good and evil. Even those who are
temporarily or permanently without the use of reason are not exempted from this obligation.
Although they do not sin subjectively in offending against the law, they break it materially
and therefore can and after must be hindered from doing so, e.g. mentally sick persons who
endanger the like of others).

(a). Extent of the Universal knowledge of the natural law

The content of the natural law is not given to man in a fully developed firm from the
beginning, but must be evolved as he progresses in other forms of knowledge. E.g. the
knowledge of physical and biological laws of nature. But the fundamental principles of the
natural law can be known with certainty by every normal man in possession of reason. They
are in fact self-evident from his nature. The most universal principle of natural law runs: -
The known good must be done and its opposite – evil – must be avoided”. Reason takes this
way of acting for granted.

On this proposition all the other precepts of the natural law are based. – But what is good and
worthy of man’s desires?

The most general and basic answer to this is given by the following principles which are
equally evident to all people.

 Maintain and promote social co-existence

 What you do not wish other to do you, do not do to them (cf Tob: 4/15).
 Leave to everyone or give to every one what is his or hers.

(b) Immutability and dynamics of Natural Law

- Immutability of natural law means that as soon as man endowed with reason had appeared,
certain fundamental norms emerged from man’s nature concerning good and evil which will
exist as long as human nature exists. There is a constant in human nature which remains
throughout all historical and cultural change.

Yet in the moral sphere as in every other, men have to learn by trial and error and by patient
scientific effort. The laws of physics have always existed, immutably, but their diservery by
men was a slow process, accompanied by many mistakes. It is not different in the evolution
in moral consciousness from the days of primeval man up to the present day. This evolution
is marked by blunders and by ignorance of laws which we regard as fundamental nowadays
e.g. freedom of conscience, freed of religious beliefs, unlawfulness of torture, also of
suspected criminals. This ignorance does not say that these laws so or did not exist before.

Objectively they have always bad immutable validity. But man’s insight into these laws had
to proceed from imperfect to perfect knowledge here as well as in other sciences. This kind
of evolutionary process does not signify immutability of natural law itself but only an
attention of human insight into it.

There is however, also the fact that the nature of man, of society and civilization is subject to
far-reaching changes. These can be seen from a glance at the cause of development from
nearer that to the present day. As civilization develops, new demands of natural law arise, so
that natural is itself changeable in operation. This kind of mutability is based in nature itself,
owing to the fact that circumstances change, the application of the same principles leads to
different conclusions. E.g. changes in the understanding of obedience and authority, with the
tendency to increase the subject’s light of condemnation in matters concerning him,
especially by means of democratic votes and elections; or the constant reduction of cases
judged as sufficient reasons for the death penalty.

(c) Indispensability of Natural Law

In true sense of the word no dispensation from the natural moral law is possible at least from
the side of human authority. Outside of positive revelation, the will of God is made known
only by natural law, and natural law is identical with God’s will. Human expectations from
this law therefore, are violations of the divinely willed order.

HUMAN LAW
Human Law: This refers to the juridical order of society, be it the state, church in so far as
this order is determined by laws which are enacted for the best to the common good. Human
law is defined as an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has
the care of the community.

Properties human law

- Is an ordinance
-Indispensable (necessary)
-Promulgation
-Can only command what is morally permissible (not sinful)
Must be for the common good and welfare
-Must be just

Law is an ordinance, i.e. it induces an obligation and is not merely counsel. It is an ordinance
of reason, because it must be based on the insights of reason into what is good and valuable
for the community. The mere will of a law, nor are emotion or sentiments.

- Laws can only be enacted for the common good and not for the private good of a few
citizens. Even if a law concerns solely a smaller group of citizens, e.g. lawyers, teachers etc
the purpose of the law must be in the last analysis be the good of the whole community.

- Promulgation is the official publication of a law so that is may become obligatory. A

law may enter into force with the moment o its promulgation or at some later date
fixed by the legislator.
- Precepts, statutes, orders differ from laws in so far as they are limited to smaller
groups, often to individuals only, or if imposed upon a public community, are merely
temporary injunction.
- The objection of Human Legislation: According to the definition of human law, the
direct object of the law is the common welfare. Human legislation has to safeguard
the common good by protecting the moral structure of the community, its interior
peace and security, social justice, human rights. Human legislation has also to
promote the common good by creating favorable conditions for the religious and
cultural life and for social and economic progress. Nevertheless, all human legislation
must never obstruct the attainment of justice, and common welfare in the true sense.

-Hence, the law can only command what is morally permitted, and it can never
command what is sinful. For all legitimate authority is in the last resort derived from
God and is not allowed, therefore, to contradict his will by sinful legislation. A law
can forbid evil or indifferent acts and exceptionally even good acts if in the
circumstances they prove dangerous for the common welfare e.g. public gatherings,
even in churches, in time of contagious plague.
 - The law must be just. This includes that the law given may not overstep his
jurisdiction.
- The law must be physically and morally possible. A law is physically impossible if it
commands actions that are completely beyond the forces and means of a person. E.g.
a Lunatic cannot be required to vote or a prisoner cannot be obliged to go to church
for prayers. Consequently, a law cannot normally order heroic acts, since this would
mean to demand what is morally impossible under ordinary circumstances.
- The law must be useful and of benefit for the common weal. A law uses its force as
soon as it becomes useless or even injurious to the community. Such may even be the
case with laws which enforce moral duties, but minor ones e.g. the obligation not to
lie. Although the observance of the whole moral law contributes in some way to the
public welfare, it would over burden public justice and be detrimental to the common
weal to urge all moral demands by public human authority. Hence human law should
only order what is of more decisive concern for public order and social life. In fact,
however, that a law does not prescribe the best means for the achievement of some
task in the community, although is fulfils its purpose nevertheless, does not invalidate
the law.

The Subjects of the Law

Subjects of the law are those who belong to the respective community by reason of some
title, birth, or naturalization and to whom the law is addressed. The legislator himself is
equally bound by the law. (his laws). Because as the head must conform himself to the body
and give good example and also because the order established for the best of the common
good obliges him by natural law as much as his subjects; he may not disregard the common
weal in his actions and must contribute to its promotion according to his abilities.

Questions: (i) Give and explain the characteristics of the natural Moral Law as well as
the (ii) Give and explain the characteristics of the human law.

TOPIC 9: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Professional Ethics encompass the personal and corporate standards of behavior expected of
professionals.

Professional people and those working in acknowledged professions exercise specialist

knowledge and skill. How the use of this knowledge should be governed when providing a
service to the public can be considered a moral issue and is termed professional ethics.

Professionals are capable of making judgments, applying their skills and reaching informed
decisions in situations that the general public cannot, because they have not received the
relevant training. One of the earliest examples of professional ethics is probably the
Hippocratic Oath to which medical doctors still adhere to this day.
Professional ethics is a set of standards adopted by a professional community. Professional
ethics are regulated by standards, which are often referred to as codes of ethics.

The code of ethics is very important because it gives us boundaries that we have to stay
within in our professional careers. The one problem with the code of ethics is that we can't
always have the answers black and white. Sometimes there are grey areas where the answers
aren't so simple. Professional ethics are also known as Ethical Business Practices.

Components of Professional Ethics

A number of professional organizations define their ethical approach as a number of discrete

components. Typically these include: honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability,
confidentiality, objectivity, respectfulness, obedience to the law and loyalty.

Honesty = to truthfulness, a facet of moral character and connotes positive and virtuous
attributes such as integrity, truthfulness and straightforwardness, including
straightforwardness of conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc.
Furthermore, honesty means being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.
Honesty is valued in many ethnic and religious cultures

Integrity = is a concept of consistence of actions, values, methods, measures, principles,

expectations, and outcomes. Integrity is a personal choice, an uncompromising and
predictably consistent commitment to honor moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and
principles

In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions.
Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy , in that judging with the standards of integrity
involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within
themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their
beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this
context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty
and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the
extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

Transparency = context more generally, implies openness, communication, and

accountability.

-Operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. For
example, a cashier making change at a point of sale by segregating a customer's large bill,
counting up from the sale amount, and placing the change on the counter in such a way as to
invite the customer to verify the amount of change demonstrates transparency.

Accountability, in ethics and governance, is answerability, blameworthiness, liability and the

expectation of account-giving. The obligation to report, explain and be answerable for
resulting consequences. Absence of accounting means an absence of accountability.
Confidentiality is a set of rules or a promise that limits access or places restrictions on
certain types of information. Lawyers are often required by law to keep confidential anything
pertaining to the representation of a client.

Objectivity is a significant principle of fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and

nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. Objectivity may be
understood as synonymous with neutrality. Describe mind-independent facts which are true
irrespective of human feelings, beliefs, or judgments.

Respectfulness: = is a positive feeling of esteem, or defiance for a person or entity.

It can also be conduct in accord with a specific ethic of respect. Rude conduct is usually
considered to indicate a lack of respect.

-Respect should not be confused with, tolerance since tolerance doesn't necessarily imply
subordination to one's qualities but means treating as equal. The antonym and opposite of
respect is disrespect.

Obedience to the Law is a term which does not have a universally accepted definition, but
one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through
social institutions to govern behavior.

To implement and enforce the law and provide services to the public-by-public servants, a
government's bureaucracy, the military and police are vital. While all these organs of the state
are creatures created and bound by law

Loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person, country, group, or cause.

Question: Professional ethics define a standard of conduct and ensure that individual
practitioners meet this standard, by disciplining them from the professional body if they do
not practice accordingly. From your study of this unit, Give and explain the various
components of professional ethics.

Conclusion

Ethical theories and principles are the foundations of ethical analysis because they are the
viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained along the pathway to a decision. Although
all of the ethical theories attempt to follow the ethical principles in order to be applicable and
valid by themselves, each theory falls short with complex flaws and failings.

Each ethical theory attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that lead to success when
trying to reach the best decision. When one understands each individual theory, including its
strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision when trying to achieve
an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.

APENDIX I

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS & EXPRESSIONS

ETHICS: A set principles that people use to decide what is right and wrong. It is also the
study of the principles of the right and wrong. An ethic is a principle or belief that affects the
way people behave. What is ethical involves the principles that are used for deciding what is
right and what is wrong.
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: Is the study of the general principles of right and wrong in a
profession, e.g. Education, medical academic professions.
CONDUCT: The way someone behaves, especially in relation to particular rules or accepted
ways of behaving. A person’s actions taken collectively make up his or her behaviour or
conduct. Behavior is more of psychological word and is applied even to animals, whereas
conduct has an ethical meaning and is exclusively human.
VOLUNTARY ACTS: are acts of the human will or ability to control ourselves, to do what
we want to do rather than have it forced on us, so that as a result we are held responsible for
what we do. Two main things that would prevent our acts from being willed by us are
ignorance and external force. And therefore, a voluntary act is said to be knowingly and
deliberately willed.
VOLUNTARY ACTS OR HUMAN ACTS: are those that we consciously control and
deliberately will for and for which we are held responsible. These acts constitute human
conduct and form the subject matter of ethics.
INVOLUNTARY ACTS: are those acts that a person happens to perform but he or she does
not consciously control or deliberately will and for which a person is not held responsible.
Such are the acts done in infancy, in deep sleep, delirium or insanity. They do not constitute
human conduct and have no ethical significance.
<Actions done by man, those alone are properly human which are proper to man .... because
man is master of his actions through his reason and will....Therefore those actions are called
human which proceed from a deliberate will. And if any actions are found in man, they can
be called actions of a man but not properly human actions, since they are not proper to man
as a man (by st. Thomas Aquinas).
HABIT: Something you do often or regularly, often without thinking about it.
MORAL HABITS (VIRTUES & VICES): By derivation, habit means having an on; and on
this score anything we have is a habit. Over the centuries, the word has come to a narrower
sense to mean a regular practice. Aristotle calls habit a lasting disposition, holding oneself in
readiness to act in certain ways, and defines habit as ‘Disposition according to which that
which is disposed, and either in itself or with reference to something else’ (also by st.
Thomas). Habits are typically human things and they have moral or ethical significance.
Good Habits of living are called Virtues and bad habits are vices. For the PLATO, >the
philosopher alone has true virtue, because only the philosopher has true wisdom and insists
on the importance of attaining that wisdom. For Plato, knowledge is virtue and ignorance is
vice. Then if knowledge is virtue and ignorance is vice, then no one does wrong voluntarily.
At most a person could be censures for neglect ting to acquire proper knowledge.
<No man voluntarily pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is
not human nature, and when a man is compelled to choose one of the two evils, no one will
choose the greater when he may have the less> (Plato, See Right and Reason, p. 201).
INTELLECTUAL & MORAL VIRTUES
A virtue is a good quality or habit that a person has, especially a moral one, such as honesty
or loyalty. It is a quality that is useful in a particular activity. A virtue is also a formal way of
behaving in which you do what is morally right and avoid things that are morally wrong.
CARDINAL VIRTUES: are Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude and Justice. The so-called
cardinal virtues are the good habits of the intellect that enable it to be a more efficient
instrument of knowledge. Their effect on one’s moral life is quite remote, for they may make
one a better student of ethics but not a better living person. Failure to exercise them results in
involuntary mistakes than in morally wrong conduct.
Aristotle distinguishes three virtues of the theoretical or speculative intellect concerned with
the contemplation of the true:
1- Understanding – the habit of first principles, the habit of knowledge of primary self-
evident truths that lie in the root of all knowledge.
2- Science – the habit of conclusions drawn by demonstrations from the first principles,
the habitual knowledge of particular sciences.
3- Wisdom – the habit of knowing things in their highest causes; an ordering of all the
principles and conclusions.

There are two virtues of the practical intellect, concerned with making and doing; the two
forms of action:
4- Art – The habit of knowing how to make thing, how to produce some external object;
it includes the mechanical, liberal and the fine arts.
5- Prudence – the habit of knowing how to act well, how to direct activity that does not
result in tangible products, how to live a good human life.
Though all the intellectual virtues have some reference to the moral life, prudence is the
most directly concerned because it enters into and illumines every act of the moral
virtues. When we speak of the practical intellect, we are using a shorthand expression for
the intellect when it is acting on the basis of our desire for some good or end.
Prudence is the virtue of the practical intellect in moral matters, for every virtuous act is
going to be an act stemming from both prudence and one of the moral virtues.
Prudence is the perfection of the intellect operating in harmony with right appetite or
desire, while the moral virtue is a perfection of the appetite itself that prudence illumines.
The moral virtues are good habits in the appetitive side of our consciousness, directing
the activity of the will and moderating sensory appetites and emotions to aim for the good
things that are befitting nature in its essential relationships. They provoke prudence with
the goals at which to aim, and prudence, on the basis of our desire for the goal, chooses
the means to attain the goal.
Prudence and the moral virtues, operating together harmoniously, enable us not merely to
know what to do and how to do it but they actually assist us in the very doing of it. Doing
a thing well is opposed to overdoing it and consists of hitting the mean (average/midway)
between excess and defect. This is Aristotle’s famous doctrine of the mean, which he
expresses thus:
>Virtue (i.e. moral virtue) is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean,
i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle by which the
man practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that
which depends on the defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall
short of or exceed what is right in both finds and chooses that which is intermediate.
Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a
mean; with regard to what is best and right, and extreme> (Right and Reason p. 204-205).

CARDINAL VIRTUES (prudence, temperance, courage justice)

A Virtue is a habit or power which enables one to perform an action with facility and
competence. Virtues are either developed by practice, such as the virtues of Prudence,
Temperance, Justice, or Fortitude, or are infused by God such as the virtues of Faith,
Hope and Charity. The virtues are the fullest expression of the person, for they manifest
the precise powers and capabilities of the individuals.
THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES – Are virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. Faith is a divinely
infused virtue which enables us to assent with conviction to the truths of salvation
revealed by God.
Hope is the infused virtue that enables us to rely on God’s grace and salvation and
fulfillment in him.
Charity is the infused virtue which enables us to love God for his own sake and oneself
and others for his sake as well. Acts of charity are necessary to attain salvation.
PRUDENCE: is using good judgment. This is an intellectual virtue that enters into the
field of the moral virtues by pointing out the mean and suggesting ways of attaining it.
Without prudence, fortitude becomes boldness, temperance becomes harshness. Prudence
chooses right means toward worthy ends; the choice of good means towards bad ends is
mere cleverness, or shrewdness but not true prudence.
It is morally impossible to have a morally virtuous act without prudence and likewise,
impossible to make a morally good judgment about how to act without moral virtue –
because moral choice is always a complex act of the intellect and appetite, of reason and
emotion.
TEMPRANCE: Is the ability to regulate drinking alcohol and also the ability to control
oneself (moderation). It regulates the appetite in the use of sensible pleasure. It moderates
our two main inclinations or drives towards self-preservation and race preservation and
thus acts as a curb on excessive indulgence in food and drink and in the use of sex. Its
opposed vices are gluttony and lust.
Temperance as virtue, better called moderation or self control, does not mean total
abstinence. When some people find that they cannot overcome temptations, total
abstinence is the only cure; others for higher motives and for their spiritual perfection,
voluntarily give up some otherwise legitimate pleasures. But no pleasure is bad in itself,
and natural morality merely requires that pleasures be indulged in with moderation in so
far as they help to attain worthy ends. The habit to do this is temperance illumined by
prudence.
Temperance contains the subordinate virtues of abstinence and sobriety, chastity and
continence. It also includes humility, modesty, gentleness and docility.
Lack of temperance appears in gluttony, drunkenness, lust, pride, cruelty and vanity. Too
much restraint, which is intemperate in the opposite direction, may produce insensibility,
solidity, sullenness and fanatical austerity.
COURAGE (FORTITUDE): or bravery inclines one to face danger and toil without
flinching. Courage implies patience, perseverance, and constancy. Lack of courage is
shown in cowardice, weakness, timidity, impatience and irresoluteness. Boldness,
presumption, stubbornness are faults of the over brave.

JUSTICE: The treatment of people that is fair and morally right. Justice inclines us to
give each one his or her own. It supposes at least two persons between whom there can be
some sort of equality, so that each person receives what really belongs to him or her.
Temperance and courage regulate the will’s government over itself where dealings with
another person are involved.
-Justice illumined by prudence, grants each person what really belongs to him or her and
takes properly moral means to do so.
Justice is divided by Aristotle into general and particular. General Justice is broad so as to
cover all virtue that has any social significance and is therefore not specific cardinal
 virtue of justice. Particular justice, which is the cardinal virtue, is divided into distributive
and corrective. The latter (corrective) is more commonly called commutative, a name
derived from the exchange of goods. Commutative justice exists between equal. Between
one person and another or between groups acting as if they were private persons
negotiating equal terms. Commutative justice is the basis of contracts. In contract, such as
barter or hire, the two persons start as equal, when one has fulfilled his or her part of the
contract the equality is unbalanced; then justice demands the restoration of equality by the
other’s fulfillment of his or her part. Likewise, one who has injured another by depriving
that person of something rightfully his or hers is obliged to restore it to that person.
Commutative justice, when violated, carries with it the obligation of restitution. Justice
remains outraged until proper compensation has bee made to establish the balance of
equity.

Distributive Justice: Is a relation between the community and its members. As its name
indicates, it requires a fair and proper distribution of public benefits and burdens among
the members of the community. Though existing in some way in all organizations,
distributive justice applies chiefly to the state. It is the particular obligation of public
officials and is violated by favoritism and partiality. It does not exist between equals, but
between a superior and his or her subordinates. The equality implied in all justice, here
means that each subordinate should get a proportionate or fair share, a share equal to his
or her just deserts.
Hence – head teacher – teacher – student – group employee.
Distributive justice has its converse, the obligation of the members to contribute to the
common good. In this case it might be called contributive justice.
SOCIAL JUSTICE: Is a modern term that has been given various meanings by various
writers. It refers to the organization of society in such a way that the common good, to
which all are expected to contribute in proportion to their ability and opportunity, is
available to all the members for their ready use and enjoyment. It involves everything
connected with being a good citizen or a good member of society and reaping what ought
to be the reward of upright and cooperative social conduct, one’s proper share of the
benefits of social living. Any arrangement of the society that excludes or hinders certain
classes or groups within it from their fair share of the common good is a violation of
social justice. St. Thomas calls it legal justice and Aristotle called it general justice.

APPENDIX II

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following
pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize
the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded
principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the
political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as
the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to

rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal
rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better
standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore,

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Proclaims

THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of

achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ
of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education
to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among
the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be
made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him.

Article 11

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for
his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which
did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed, nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the
time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each
state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
country.

Article 14

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-
political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.

Article 16

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage,
during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State.

Article 17

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage
and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to
realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the
organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself
and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours
and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children,
whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional
education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible
to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and
shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their
children.

Article 27

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy
the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from
any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the
rights and freedoms set forth herein.