Download What Is Ethics

What is Ethics?
Developed by
Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer
A few years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart
asked business people, "What does ethics
mean to you?"
Among their replies were the following:
"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me
is right or wrong.“
 "Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs.“
 "Being ethical is doing what the law requires.“
 "Ethics consists of the standards of behavior
our society accepts.“
 "I don't know what the word means."
These replies might be typical of our own. The
meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and
the views many people have about ethics are
shaky.

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to
equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is
clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A
person following his or her feelings may recoil from
doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently
deviate from what is ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most
religions, of course, advocate high ethical
standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion,
then ethics would apply only to religious people. But
ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist
as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical
standards and can provide intense motivations for
ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be
confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law.
The law often incorporates ethical standards to
which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like
feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own
pre-Civil War slavery laws and the apartheid laws of
present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious
examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing
"whatever society accepts." In any society, most
people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical.
But standards of behavior in society can deviate
from what is ethical. An entire society can become
ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example
of a morally corrupt society.
Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever
society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one
would have to find out what society accepts. To
decide what I should think about abortion, for
example, I would have to take a survey of American
society and then conform my beliefs to whatever
society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an
ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of
social consensus on many issues makes it
impossible to equate ethics with whatever society
accepts. Some people accept abortion but many
others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever
society accepts, one would have to find an
agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
What, then, is ethics?
Ethics is two things.
First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and
wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do,
usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to
society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for
example, refers to those standards that impose the
reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing,
murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical
standards also include those that enjoin virtues of
honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical
standards include standards relating to rights, such
as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury,
and the right to privacy. Such standards are
adequate standards of ethics because they are
supported by consistent and well founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development
of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above,
feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from
what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly
examine one's standards to ensure that they are
reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means,
then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral
beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure
that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live
up to standards that are reasonable and solidlybased.
This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987)
Ethics vs. Compliance
As scandals swirl around the White House, President Bush has ordered
his staff to take a refresher course in ethics. [See related Newsline
story, Nov. 14.] Not a moment too soon, many would say. But there
are two problems with the president's directive. First, as any
organization knows, the tone is set at the top. So it is a mistake for the
president to exempt himself from such a class. If he thinks that ethics
in the White House is important (and who doesn't?), then he, as the
leader in charge, must also attend the session, at least to demonstrate
that the classes are serious, not just a public relations stunt.
The second problem with such an ethics course is that it is about ethics
in name only. In fact, the course is about compliance with a set of laws
that basically address conflicts of interest and, in this particular
instance, rules for handling classified information. The assumption
behind this kind of ethics class is that ethics is rule-following. It is the
mistaken idea that ethics and following the law are the same thing.
Most of the time ethics and the law overlap but not always. Just last
week Rosa Parks was honored by this nation for having the courage
to have broken an unjust law. In hindsight, everyone -- from the
president to Supreme Court justices to school children -- recognized
that there are times in which laws are themselves unethical, and the
right thing to do is not to comply with them.
But the more serious problem with equating ethics with rule-following is
that ethics often demands more than memorizing and living by a set of
rules. A study done of law school students, for example, shows that
their ability to make sound ethical judgments is impaired by their three
years in law school because ethics is presented in a rule-based
manner. The conclusion that students reach is that all that is
necessary to be ethical is to follow the letter of the law. Anything that is
done to further your own case that isn't illegal is, by this definition,
ethically acceptable.
Ethics -- real ethics -- requires the use of judgment, and this is distinct
from rule-following. Judgment is acquired by struggling with situations
that aren't clear-cut; it requires self-reflection and an openness to
alternative possibilities.
Refresher courses in ethics is a fine idea -- if ethics is broadly defined
and if the person in charge of the organization participates in those
courses. But courses that focus on ethics as mere rules make matters
worse. Ethics classes that discuss the dilemmas of wealth and
poverty, war and peace, prosperity and the environment, security and
human rights, and immigration and national identity are classes that
will make a difference. This is harder than what the president
proposes. But whoever thought ethics was easy was fooling more
than himself.
-Arthur Dobrin,
Professor of Humanities, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Law vs. Ethics
• http://www.quia.com/cz/13244.html
What is Ethics and Morality?
• Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms
having to do with “custom,” ”habit,” and
“behavior.
• Ethics is the study of morality.
• This definition raises two questions:
• (a) What is morality?
• (b) What is the study of morality?
What is Ethics?
• Branch of Philosophy:
– What is …..
– Good
Other Branches? What is….
• Knowledge
• In the world
• Beautiful
• Our Relationship to Other People
What is Morality?
• morality can be defined as:
a system of rules for guiding human conduct,
and principles for evaluating those rules.
Two points are worth noting in this definition:
• (i) morality is a system; and
• (ii) it is a system comprised of moral rules and
principles.
• moral rules can be understood as "rules of
conduct," which are very similar to "policies."
Summary
 Ethics:
Study of morality
 Branch of Philosophy

 Morality
System of Rules
 Rules of conduct

Wrong??
 Why do we do wrong things?
• Why do we disagree on what is right?
• How do we justify doing wrong things?
"Roadblocks" to Moral Discourse
• 1. People disagree about morality; so how
can we reach agreement on moral issues?
• 2. Who am I/Who are we to judge others
and to impose my/our values on others?
• 3. Isn't morality simply a private matter?
• 4. Isn't morality simply a matter that
different cultures and groups should
determine for themselves?
People Disagree on Solutions to Moral Issues
But:
 (i) Experts in other fields of study, such as
science and math, also disagree.
 (ii) There is common agreement about
some moral questions.
 (iii) People do not always distinguish between
"disagreements about factual matters" and
"disagreements on general principles“
in disputes involving morality.
Who am I to Judge Others?
We need to distinguish between:
 “Persons Making Judgments” and
“Persons Being Judgmental,“ and
 “Judgments Involving Condemnations”
vs. “Judgments Involving Evaluations”

Also, we are sometimes required to
make judgments about others.
Ethics is Simply a Private Matter

Morality is essentially personal in nature
and therefore a private matter?

“Private morality" is essentially an
oxymoron or contradictory notion.

Morality is a public phenomenon (Gert).
Morality is “relative”
A Matter for Individual Cultures to Decide
A moral system is dependent on, or
relative to, a particular culture or group.
 Ethical Relativism.
 Need to distinguish between:


cultural relativism Different cultures have different
beliefs about what constitutes morally right and wrong
behavior.

moral relativism no universal standard of morality is
possible because different people have different beliefs about
what is right and wrong. anything goes.
Summary of Logical Flaws in the
Discussion Stoppers
Stopper #1
Stopper #2
Stopper #3
Stopper #4
People disagree on
solutions to moral
issues.
Who am I to judge
others?
Ethics is imply a
private matter.
Morality is simply a
matter for individual
cultures to decide.
__________________
__________________
_________________ ___________________
1. Fails to recognize
that experts in many
areas disagree on key
issues in their fields.
1. Fails to distinguish
between the act of
judging and being a
judgmental person.
1. Fails to recognize that
morality is
essentially a public
system.
1. Fails to distinguish
between descriptive and
normative claims about
morality.
2. Fails to recognize
that there are many
moral issues on which
people agree.
2. Fails to distinguish
between judging as
condemning and
judging as evaluating.
2. Assumes that people
can never reach
common agreement on
some moral principles.
3. Fails to distinguish
between
disagreements about
principles and
disagreements about
facts.
3. Fails to recognize
that sometimes we are
required to make
judgments
2. Fails to note that
personally-based
morality can cause
major harm to
others.
3. Confuses moral
choices with
individual or
personal
preferences.
3. Assumes that a
system is moral because
a majority in a culture
decides it is moral.