Invariably, the first question that arises is What is Ethics?
The term ethics may refer to the philosophical study of
- The concepts of moral right and wrong and moral good and bad, to any philosophical theory, and
- Any system or code of moral rules, principles, or values.
The last may be associated with particular religions, cultures, professions, or virtually any other group that is at least partly characterized by its moral outlook.
The second question that comes to the mind is Why does Ethics Matter?
Ethics matters because:
- it acts as the basis for the individuals and groups to define themselves and thus build the identity of their own or the individual members,
- because values in most ethical systems reflect and foster close human relationships and mutual respect and trust, and
- it could be “rational” for a self-interested person to be moral, because his or her self-interest is arguably best served in the long run by reciprocating the moral behaviour of others.
This is supported by various ethical and philosophical theories.
The Origin of Ethics
When did ethics begin and how did it originate?
If one has in mind ethics proper—i.e., the systematic study of what is morally right and wrong—it is clear that ethics could have come into existence only when human beings started to reflect on the best way to live.
This reflective stage emerged long after human societies had developed some kind of morality, usually in the form of customary standards of right and wrong conduct.
The process of reflection tended to arise from such customs, even if in the end it may have found them wanting. Accordingly, ethics began with the introduction of the first moral codes.
Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi (died c. 1750 BCE), known as the Code of Hammurabi. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) account of God’s giving the Ten Commandments to Moses (flourished 14th–13th century BCE) on Mount Sinai might be considered another example. In the dialogue Protagoras by Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), there is an avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who were physically no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies, Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another. The concepts of Bhagwat Geeta, where Lord Krishna guided Arjun towards building a better society even on the cost of loosing ill-minded peer relatives, is an EPIC that acts as a testimonial of what is right and what is wrong in the civic society. Same is with Ramayana.
That morality should be invested with all the mystery and power of divine origin is not surprising. Nothing else could provide such strong reasons for accepting the moral law. By attributing a divine origin to morality, the priesthood became its interpreter and guardian and thereby secured for itself a power that it would not readily relinquish. This link between morality and religion has been so firmly forged that it is still sometimes asserted that there can be no morality without religion. According to this view, ethics is not an independent field of study but rather a branch of theology (see moral theology).
There is some difficulty, already known to Plato, with the view that morality was created by a divine power. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that, if this were the case, one could not say that the gods approve of such actions because they are good. Why then do they approve of them? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some standards of right or wrong that are independent of the likes and dislikes of the gods. Modern philosophers have generally accepted Plato’s argument, because the alternative implies that if, for example, the gods had happened to approve of torturing children and to disapprove of helping one’s neighbours, then torture would have been good and neighbourliness bad.
Problems of divine origin
A modern theist (see theism) might say that, since God is good, God could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could mean only that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is needed.
There are other possible connections between religion and morality. It has been said that, even if standards of good and evil exist independently of God or the gods, divine revelation is the only reliable means of finding out what these standards are. An obvious problem with this view is that those who receive divine revelations, or who consider themselves qualified to interpret them, do not always agree on what is good and what is evil. Without an accepted criterion for the authenticity of a revelation or an interpretation, people are no better off, so far as reaching moral agreement is concerned, than they would be if they were to decide on good and evil themselves, with no assistance from religion.
Traditionally, a more important link between religion and ethics was that religious teachings were thought to provide a reason for doing what is right. In its crudest form, the reason was that those who obey the moral law will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while everyone else roasts in hell. In more sophisticated versions, the motivation provided by religion was more inspirational and less blatantly self-interested. Whether in its crude or its sophisticated version, or something in between, religion does provide an answer to one of the great questions of ethics: “Why should I be moral?” (See below Ethics and reasons for action.) As will be seen in the course of this article, however, the answer provided by religion is not the only one available.
Moral Philosophy
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into given general subject areas:
Meta-ethics - Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.
Meta Ethics is concerned primarily with the meaning of ethical judgments, and seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments, and how they may be supported or defended. A meta ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not attempt to evaluate specific choices as being better, worse, good, bad or evil. Rather it tries to define the essential meaning and nature of the problem being discussed. It concerns itself with second order questions, specifically the semantics, epistemology and ontology of ethics. The major meta ethical views are commonly divided into two camps: Moral Realism and Moral Anti Realism.
- Moral Realism – Also called Moral Objectivism, holds that there are objective moral values, so that evaluative statements are essentially factual claims, which are either true or false, and that their truth or falsity are independent of our beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes, towards the things being evaluated. It is a cognitivist view since it holds that ethical sentences express valid propositions, and are therefore truth apt.
- Moral Anti-Realism – It holds that there are no objective moral values, and comes in one of three forms, depending on whether:
Ethical statements are believed to be subjective claims supporting Ethical Subjectivism,
Not genuine claims at all, which is called Non Cognitivism, Or,
Mistaken objective claims which is termed as Moral Nihilism, or Moral Scepticism.
2. Normative ethics –
Normative Ethics, or Prescriptive Ethics, is the branch of ethics concerned with establishing, how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. It attempts to develop a set of rules governing human conduct, or a set of norms for action.
Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.
Normative ethical theories are usually split into three main categories, namely Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics.
- Consequentialism - Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do. Two examples of consequentialism are. Utilitarianism, and, Hedonism.
o Utilitarianism - Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.
Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one. So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.
o Hedonism - Hedonism is the belief that pleasure, or the absence of pain, is the most important principle in determining the morality of a potential course of action. Pleasure can be things like “party, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll,” but it can also include any intrinsically valuable experience like reading a good book. Hedonism is a type of consequentialism, and it has several forms. For example, normative hedonism is the idea that pleasure should be people’s primary motivation. On the other hand, motivational hedonism says that only pleasure and pain cause people to do what they do.
Egotistical hedonism requires a person to consider only his or her own pleasure in making choices. Conversely, altruistic hedonism says that the creation of pleasure for all people is the best way to measure if an action is ethical. Regardless of the type of hedonism, critics fault it as a guide for morality because hedonism ignores all other values, such as freedom or fairness, when evaluating right and wrong.
Coming back to Consequentialism, it is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good.
- Deontology - It is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. It is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights. The Greek deon means an obligation or duty).
Deontology is often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.” Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical. Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you only have to follow set rules.
Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die. So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong.
- Virtue Ethics - It is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.
Approaching the Normative Ethics back, to illustrate the difference among three philosophies of Normative Ethics, ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight, where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker.
- Utilitarian, White and Arp endorse killing of the Joker by Batman. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes.
- Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill.
- But a virtue ethicist would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives” No, in fact, he doesn’t.
3. Descriptive ethics - Descriptive Ethics is a value free approach to ethics, which examines ethics from the perspective of observations of actual choices, made by moral agents in practice. It is the study of people's beliefs about morality, and implies the existence of theories of value or of conduct , rather than explicitly prescribing them.
It is more likely to be investigated by those working in the fields of evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, history, or anthropology, although information that comes from descriptive ethics is also used in philosophical arguments. Descriptive Ethics is sometimes referred to as Comparative Ethics. It is because so much activity can involve comparing ethical systems, comparing the ethics of the past to the present, comparing the ethics of one society to another, and comparing the ethics which people claim to follow with the actual rules of conduct, which do describe their actions. It is not designed to provide guidance to people in making moral decisions, nor is it designed to evaluate the reasonableness of moral norms.
4. Applied ethics - Finally, The fourth branch of moral philosophy is Applied Ethics which is a discipline of philosophy, that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. Strict, principle based ethical approaches often result in solutions to specific problems, that are not universally acceptable or impossible to implement. Applied Ethics is much more ready to include the insights of psychology, sociology, and other relevant areas of knowledge in its deliberations.
The following would be questions of Applied Ethics.
o Is euthanasia immoral.
o Is affirmative action right or wrong.
o What are human rights, and how do we determine them. And
o Do animals have rights as well?
Medical Ethics, Bioethics, Legal Ethics, Business Ethics, Environmental Ethics, Information Ethics, Media Ethics, falls under the discipline of applied ethics. Thus, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, capital punishment, or nuclear war