Download PHILOSOPHY_6

NAME: ANAYO CHIDINMA VERA
DEPARTMENT: NURSING
LEVEL: 100
COURSE: GST 113 (PHILOSOPHY): CHAPTER 19
ETHICS AND HUMAN CONDUCT IN THE SOCIETY
In his famous book politics, Aristotle defined man as “zoon politikon,” which means political beings. This is aimed at portraying
human beings as social beings. He portrayed that no man is a Robinson Crusoe (or an island) that is self-sufficient. The fact that
everyone needs others in the pursuit of social, economic, political, spiritual goals cannot be over emphasized. One cannot agree less
with Aristotle then that “he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because for himself must be either a beast or a god.”
However, the rules in a society do not bother strictly on how individuals should relate to one another. The realization of this
importance of morals rules to the society has led to the systematic study of what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust called
ethics.
ETHICS AND ITS GOALS.
Ethics is a field of philosophy where the analytical and critical tools of philosophy are focused on
human actions. It is a field that seeks to unearth the nature of morality and what the right moral judgement
entails. It touches every facet of life where one can point to one human conduct or the other.
Ethics is a rational inquiry. It is practiced with the belief that human beings are rational, and that as
rational beings they will seek adequate reasons or relevant evidence that will enable them make justifiable
decisions concerning their actions in their quest to determine the proper way to behave.
The ultimate aim of ethics, is to furnish human beings with standards with which they can make
distinction between those “actions that are good and those that are bad, between those that are
right and those that are wrong, between those that are acceptable and those that are not acceptable,
and between those that are commendable or not commendable”. In other words, ethics prescribes
moral norms that human conducts should conform to, and condemns vices which they should run away
from.
Ethics is instrumental in ensuring social order which is germane for securing the common good.
Furthermore, a good knowledge of ethics provides a guide for political leaders, public servants, and
professionals regarding how to conduct the affairs of a group of people.
In attaining the ultimate goals of ethics, moral philosophers undertake two tasks which are:
1) presenting us with better understanding of concepts employed in moral discourse and;
2) developing theories that people can appeal to it in making moral decisions and which serves
as justifications for human conduct.
METAETHICS.
According to Bodunrin, “the first step in philosophical reasoning is conceptual analysis”. This step
allows the philosopher to explicate the concept or idea being discussed, thereby allowing the philosopher
to unearth the meaning of his terms and avoid linguistics muddle. In ethics, this aim is undertaken in
metaethics. The issues addressed in metaethics, unlike those of normative ethics, do not concern
determining the rightness and wrongness of an action, rather they have to know what terms like “right”,
“wrong”, “good”, “bad”, “morality”, “moral judgement”, among others mean.
Metaethics is also concerned with the meaning of ethical statements. Emotivism, which is a
metaethical theory, seeks to influence the attitude, and in turn the conduct, of an individual/group of
people. Prescriptivism is another metaethical theory that suggests how moral statements should be
understood.
Some metaethical theories however, attempt to address issues relating to the origin or justification for
moral standards. The aim is to understand what makes an action moral or immoral, right or wrong.
Examples of such theories include the divine command theory (depends on what God says), ethical
relativism (what the individuals, culture or epoch determines or justifies right or wrong).
NORMATIVE ETHICS.
The main focus of this division of ethics is on determining “principles that ought to guide human
conduct” or “the formulation of moral rules that have direct implications for what human actions,
institutions, and ways of life should be like”. In fulfilling this task, moral philosophers have put forward
various normative theories recommending what ought to be considered in determining whether an action
is right or wrong.
The first set of theories is called teleological ethical theories. There is no consensus among
proponents of teleological ethical theories as to what qualifies a result as good or bad. For philosophers
who subscribe to this view, an action is right if it promotes the greatest amount of over pain; and wrong if
it enhances more pain than pleasure. The normative ethical theory called ethical hedonism is an ethical
theory that interprets the rightness or wrongness of an action this way. The position of ethical hedonists is
that pleasure is the only intrinsic good worth seeking and pain, the only intrinsic bad that should be
avoided. Eudaemonism in ethics is used to capture the idea that happiness is the chief good.
Ethical egoism recommends that the performer of an action should seek to maximize pleasure or
happiness for himself. Countering the stance of this ethical theory is the argument put forward by the
proponents of ethical altruism who are of the view that the criterion for determining that which is wrong
from that which is right morally has to do with whether the deed promotes the interest of others rather
than one’s interest. However, mediating between these two extreme theories is the position of
utilitarianism, which holds that an action is morally right if it promotes the greatest number of pleasure
or happiness for the greatest number of people. Hence, a major distinction between utilitarianism, ethical
egoism and ethical altruism is the scope of the consequence. Utilitarians believe that the good that must
be maximized is the overall good, which requires that the actor considers the good of others as well as his
own good.
Teleological ethical theories have some shortcomings. One is that they require that we foresee the
outcome of our actions, which incidentally is what humans are not totally capable of. Some
consequences which are foreseen to bring good results sometimes end up producing bad ones and vice
versa. In addition, humans are often incapable of foreseeing which action will purely benefit self, or
others, or even the majority. Another major failure of consequentialism (or the teleological theory) is that
it makes it appear that the end justifies the means. But the problem is that an evil means cannot justify
a good end (even if it has a good end, the means cannot be said to be morally good).
The inadequacies of consequentialist ethical theories made some philosophers to favor deontological
ethical theories. Deontological ethical theories reject the use of the outcome of an action in judging its
rightness or wrongness. Generally, deontological ethical theories place important rules, motives, and the
nature of the action itself in deciding the rightness or wrongness of an action. Kant’s Moral Theory is an
example deontological ethical theories.
Immanuel Kant is of the view that the outcome of an action matters less than the will or motive
informing an action to be performed. Acting in line with duty, for Kant, is also important in determining
the rightness of an action. Duty to him is “the recognition that you are under a moral obligation, an
obligation to do what is right”.
CONCLUSION
The influence that ethics has could be in two dimensions. The first could be through enabling persons to
have better understanding of terms, concepts, and statements employed in moral reasoning or moral
discourse. The other is that ethics makes available frameworks of action in form of normative theories
that can guide human actions and, if adhered to, enable people to act rationally and morally.