Download Lecture Notes-- Applied Ethics

Dr. Ari Santas
Outline Notes-- PHIL-2030
I. Course Introduction
A. What is Ethics?
-definition #1: Ethics is a branch of philosophy
-not much help, huh? There's an obvious question here:
What is Philosophy?
-a good question! There are various competing answers, but I will only sketch for you a basic idea-- one that will
hopefully give you insight into why anyone would ever spend any time with it.
-old conceptions: it started out as cosmology and metaphysics, but later came to include all areas of inquiry
-The Greeks (Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle)
-The Medievals (church fathers)
-The Moderns (modern science): some divergences
-new conceptions: today, philosophy has no particular subject matter, nor does it necessarily espouse any
particular beliefs. It's not something you have; but something you do
-In short, philosophy is inquiry directed towards the resolutions of problems in whatever field they may arise
-ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is therefore a form of problem-solving
-definition #2: Ethics is a branch of philosophy that inquires into the resolution of moral problems
B. What is a Moral Problem?
-what distinguishes moral problems from nonmoral ones? And what is a problem?
-a problem, quite simply, is the inhibition or thwarting of activity-- like a car getting stuck in the mud, or two
countries disagreeing over land. A moral problem is such a thwarting that exists in the context of a moral
situation as opposed to a nonmoral one; so what is a moral situation? Here are some terms:
Descriptive Terms:
moral =
nonmoral =
conflict of
no conflict
interest or value
Normative Terms:
Moral =
Immoral =
appropriate response
inappropriate response
to a moral problem
to a moral problem
-definition #3: Ethics is the branch of philosophy that inquires into conflicts of interest and/or values (moral
problems) in an attempt to solve them
-a question remains, however, concerning the nature of this inquiry. What counts as good inquiry?
C. Rationality
-If there's one rule to go by in philosophy, it's this: Be Rational, Reasonable in your inquiries; but what does it
mean to be rational? Is it simply the offering of reasons? offering reasons is certainly a necessary condition, but
is it sufficient? What about Rationalization? What's the difference between Rationality and Rationalization?
Rationality
Rationalization
begins with a question
proposes hypotheses and
tests them against the evidence
inquiry is primary, conclusion is secondary
change conclusion as evidence dictates
reasons are held independently of
desires and interests
-can you think of examples?
begins with a foregone conclusion
makes conclusions without testing
against evidence
conclusion is primary, inquiry secondary
hold conclusion tenaciously
reasons are turned into excuses
for getting what's desired
D. Rationality Defined
-Rationality consists in solving a problem by beginning with what you know, and moving to what you didn't
know, but now do through the use of reasons and evidence
-e.g., modus ponens
-Rationalization consists in beginning with you want to believe and looking for any means to making it look
rational, but not honestly considering the weight of the evidence.
-Dialectical Rationality: when the problem is between two or more persons, rationality in solving it consists in
beginning with what we agree on, and moving towards what we didn't agree on, but now do, by means of
commonly held reasons and principles
-can you think of examples?
-this last kind of reasoning is the heart of moral reasoning-- finding a common ground and building on it to
achieve new levels of agreement.
E. Ethics and Morality
-morality, like ethics, involves dealing with moral problems; but it is not the same thing as ethical theory
-common conceptions of 'morality' come from tradition and conscience, but from the standpoint of philosophy,
there’s much more to it. Morality, as I define it, is nothing more than a set of rules, implicit and explicit, for
guiding behavior
-but it is not something that is simply made up by anyone or for any purpose
-it is a social institution, in fact, the most fundamental of all institutions
-definition of morality: an institutionalized set of rules whose purpose it is to guide behavior towards the
avoidance and/or resolution of moral problems
-compare to the definition of ethics
-if you recall that a moral problem is one that involves a conflict of interests or values, morality is simply a means
to dealing with such conflicts. There are two ways in which ethics serves as a key element in the development of
morality
-first, presumably, there was a point in time when a given tradition had not formed yet, and if the rule had not
been formed by mere fiat (too often the case), it had been created out of moral reasoning about which course is
best to follow.
-some of the first rules, no doubt, grew out of a rational realization that certain sorts of conduct were
conducive to a good society
-others, unfortunately, were designed for the benefit of the ruling class; but if there's any hope to revise
or dismantle these arbitrary rules, rational principles will lead the charge
-second, it is often the case that our traditions and our consciences cannot deal with a given problem
-here is where moral reasoning and reflection can help:
1) there's a new problem to which old rules don't apply
2) the old rules are flawed, or conflict with one another
F. Means and Ends
-When evaluating a rule or particular course of action, it's important to make a distinction between the end in
view and the means to its achievement. An end is a goal, or aim-- it's what we're trying to achieve in our actions
or policies; a means is what we do to achieve our goals
-traditionally, the two have been associated with another pair of concepts: intrinsic and extrinsic goods
-an intrinsic good is something that has value in and of itself (these have been designated as ends-inthemselves); an extrinsic good (or, instrumental good) is something that is good only because it achieves
something else (these have been designated means-to-ends)
-many modern theorists have abandoned this distinction, but whether or not one holds it, it is acknowledged
that means and ends most often operate on a continuum
G. Legal vs. Moral
-an important distinction to make in the discussion of public policy and ethics in general is that between legality
and morality. Though the two are related and overlap, they are not the same. In general, the moral rules of a
society are not the same thing as its laws-- nor should they be
-illegal----/---> immoral
-possibly a bad law (e.g., Jim Crow, apartheid)
-immoral----/---> illegal
-not all rules should be legally enforced (promising)
-legal----/---> moral
-legal permissibility does not make it right (marital rape until recently)
-a moral system must ask not only what the rules should be, but also how to go about enforcing them. That is
the question of sanctions
H. Levels of Social Control
-getting people to follow the rules once we've figured them out is a problem in itself
-it is often a philosophical problem inasmuch as there can be great disagreement over this question, and
much inquiry needed
-in fact, many of the issues that we'll be dealing with concern the extent to which law show be used to
promote social ends. These are the basic kinds of sanctions (means of enforcement)
reward
Legal Sanctions-----laws-----------force & incentive
punishment
praise
Moral Sanctions-----(a) norms-------social pressure
\
blame
\
\
pride
(b) conscience-----self pressure
guilt
-these amount to 3 forms of social control:
-forcing compliance by coercion and strong positive incentive;
-pressuring compliance by peer pressure and stigma;
-allowing internal feelings of the individual to guide them.
-the question is, which ones do we use for which rules?
I. Normative and Descriptive Claims
-another important distinction to make in this study is that between claims that are descriptive and those that
are normative (prescriptive)
-some claims simply describe what is the case while others tell us what ought to be the case
-consider the following examples:
(1a) Sally slapped Johnny after he kissed her
(1b) Sally ought to slap Johnny after he kisses her
(2a) The abortion pill is illegal in the U.S.
(2b) The abortion pill ought to be illegal in the U.S.
-note that the truth of one does not support the truth of the other
-if something is the case, it doesn't follow that it ought to be
-you can't say 'x' is right simply because people are doing 'x'
-and if it ought to be the case, there's no reason to believe that it is!
-in other words, you can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is',1 or vice versa
J. Why We Need Ethics
-a good question is, why do we need philosophy? why ethics? why rationality?
-why make all these fine distinctions?
-why not simply let the laws of the land, tradition, and common sense deal with our problems?
-some may answer that philosophy is valuable in its own right, that deep thinking is its own reward. What say
you?
-I shall not try to defend this view, for there's a more practical reason:
-using rationality in solving ethical problems makes it more likely that our solutions will be acceptable to
those with whom we are in conflict.
-basically, we need philosophical approaches to problems because many of them cannot be solved by an appeal
to our "common sense" and intuition.
-as we'll see, traditional rules and personal conscience, while very useful, is quite limited
-today, there are a number of social crises, that traditional rules and ideas have not been able to solve:
-race relations
-abortion
-health care
-euthanasia
-environment
-death penalty
-education
-unemployment
1 Some Theorists have called this Hume’s Law, and contend that the law is stronger than I have stated the idea here, claiming that no
normative or prescriptive claim can logically follow a descriptive one. I leave such controversies for another class.