Download Ethical relativism is the view that moral codes are

MORALITY and Ethics
Dilemma and Moral Dilemmas
Euthanasia: Assisted suicide or Mercy Killing?
The Bertram and Virginia Harper Case
Difference between Morality and Ethics
Ethical Relativism and Ethical Subjectivism
Ethical relativism is the view that moral codes are relative to particular societies
or culture and that what is moral differs from one society to another.
Philosophers have called ethical subjectivism, the view that an act is right simply
because a person judges it to be right, or vice versa.
Descriptive and Normative Ethics
Deontological and Teleological Ethical Theories
Virtue Ethics, and Divine Command Theory
Are there no universal moral principles?
============0-0==========
Types of Ethical Systems < http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq_phileth_sys.htm >
Deontological, Teleological and Virtue Ethics
Normative ethical systems can generally be broken down into three categories: deontological,
teleological and virtue ethics. The first two are considered deontic or action-based theories of morality
because they focus entirely upon the actions which a person performs. When actions are judged
morally right based upon their consequences, we have teleological or consequentialist ethical theory.
When actions are judged morally right based upon how well they conform to some set of duties, we
have a deontological ethical theory.
Whereas these first two systems focus on the question "What should I do?," the third asks an entirely
different question: "What sort of person should I be?" With this we have a virtue-based ethical theory
- it doesn't judge actions as right or wrong but rather the character of the person doing the actions.
The person, in turn, makes moral decisions based upon which actions would make one a good person.
Deontology and Ethics
Deontological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. Thus,
in order to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist
which regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are
behaving immorally.
Teleology and Ethics
Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which any action might have (for that
reason, they are often referred to as consequentalist moral systems, and both terms are used here). Thus, in order to make correct
moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices. When we make choices which result in
the correct consequences, then we are acting morally; when we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then we
are acting immorally.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue-based ethical theories place much less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people
develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. These character traits will, in turn, allow a person to make the
correct decisions later on in life. Virtue theorists also emphasize the need for people to learn how to break bad habits of character,
like greed or anger. These are called vices and stand in the way of becoming a good person.
-->
Moral Relativism
www.moralrelativism.info/
A critical look at moral relativism, the philosophical theory that morality varies between
individuals and cultures and so there is no objective right and wrong.
Moral Relativism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
by E Westacott - 2012
May 30, 2012 – Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only
relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a ...
Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the
differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures.
Variations - History - Views on meta-ethical relativism - See also
Difference between Morality and Ethics
While morals and ethics are words that are often used interchangeably, we might
think of morals as having to do with those general principles and guidelines each
of us carries around with us for dealing with our everyday moral (right and
wrong) problems and concerns. Ethics is that philosophical discipline that enters
into an analysis of those moral codes and principles.
Ethical Relativism &
ETHICAL
SUBCTIVISM
As you begin to grapple with the philosophical problems associated with the case of
Bertram and Virginia Harper, it’s not unexpected that you might begin to think that
there is no one answer to the question, “Did Bertram Harper do the right thing when
he helped his wife to end her life?” After all, you may have read of accounts of
nomadic cultures or of those who live in harsh climates, such as the Inuit, who
practice euthanasia in order to hasten the deaths of those individuals they can not
properly care for. Ethical relativism is the view that moral codes are relative to
particular societies or culture and that what is moral differs from one society to
another. The roots of ethical relativism are already hinted at in the following brief
selection from The Histories, by the Greek historian Herodutus:
If one were to offer men to choose out of customs in the world such as seemed to them the best, they
would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own, so convinced are they that their
own usages far surpass those of all others.… That people have this feeling about their laws may be seen
by very many proofs: among others, by the following. Darius, after he got the kingdom of [ Persia ],
called into his presence certain Greeks who were at hand, and asked what he should pay them to eat
the bodies of their fathers when they died. To which they answered that there was no sum that would
tempt them to do such a thing. He then sent for certain Indians of the race called Callatians, men who
eat their fathers, and asked them, as the Greeks stood by, and knew by the help of an interpreter all that
was said, what he should give them to burn their fathers when they died. The Indians exclaimed in
horror and asked him not to use such language. Such are the rules of custom, and Pindar was right in my
judgement when he said: `Custom is the King over all.'
Today we enjoy an even greater knowledge of the variety of cultures around the
world than did Herodutus. The twentieth-century American anthropologist Ruth
Benedict, argued that morality is often a “convenient term for socially approved
habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, ‘It is morally good,’ rather than ‘It is
habitual,’ and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of
ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous.”
Might it be the case that moral values are relative to particular cultures and that
there are no universal moral values? In order to exercise and develop your skills of
philosophical analysis, consider spending some time examining this issue more
closely. You might begin with a little brainstorming, trying to identify reasons on
either side of this issue. Perhaps discuss this issue with your classmates or friends.
Consider what you may have learned in other courses relevant to this topic. From
there, further examine those reasons you have identified and pick out those you take
to be the strongest and most persuasive. Finally, write a brief argumentative essay
that begins with the thesis statement: “Moral values are/are not relative to
particular cultures.”
Ethical Subjectivism:
Returning again to our initial assessment of the Harper case, it is likely that in early
discussions of Bertram’s actions, someone may have voiced the following argument:
“Bertram Harper simply did what he thought was right. Who are we to judge his
actions as moral or immoral? Each of us has different ideas about what is right or
wrong and each of us has to decide for ourselves what ought to be done in this
situation. There is no one right thing to do. It’s up to the individual to decide what’s
right. It’s all really just a matter of one’s opinion” This argument succinctly states a
view which philosophers have called ethical subjectivism, the view that an act is
right simply because a person judges it to be right. If Bertram’s actions expressed
his subjective preferences, then they were the right thing to do. As you might have
noticed, the approach of the ethical subjectivist to our moral dilemma is very similar
to the approach of the ethical relativist, only now, rather than arguing that moral
beliefs are relative to cultures, the argument is that moral beliefs are relative to or
determined by individual preferences or opinions. You might notice, for instance, in
reading “Love and Let Die” all the different opinions expressed by individuals in the
article. This could lead you to conclude that there is no right answer to the question of
assisted suicide and that it is all a matter of one’s opinion.
How does this stand up as an analysis of the Harper case? Not very well. Consider a
relatively elementary argument:
1. Ethics is all a matter of personal opinion.
2. Bertram Harper was of the opinion that assisting his wife to die was right.
Therefore,
3. Assisting his wife to die was right.
This argument is such that if you accept the first two claims, you ought to accept the
third claim. In the addendum to this chapter we will discuss this and other features of
arguments. But ought we to accept the first two claims? Clearly, the second claim is
not problematic. Being charitable and taking Bertram at his word, he thought he was
doing the right thing. Is the first claim acceptable? One way that we might evaluate
the acceptability of a claim is by considering its implications. If we think that a claim
brings with it unacceptable implications, then it’s reasonable to question the
acceptability of that claim. Does the first claim bring with it any acceptable
implications? Consider two. First, if ethics is all a matter of personal opinion, we lose
any grounds on which to judge certain practices as objectively immoral. When
terrorists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center , people around the world
morally condemned their actions. We routinely and unproblematically condemn such
actions as immoral. If we were to accept the claim that ethics is a matter of personal
opinion, these moral condemnations would be pointless. Secondly and relatedly,
imagine that it’s your opinion that Bertram was right to help his wife die but that a
classmate of yours is of the opinion that Bertram was wrong to help his wife die. If the
first claim above is correct, then Bertram was both right and wrong to help his wife
die, which on the face of it appears contradictory. We might resolve this contradiction
by suggesting that it’s only for you that Bertram was right and only for your
classmate that Bertram was wrong. But when faced with disagreements like this, we
often work to try and resolve them. If ethics is merely a matter of opinion, there’s no
basis on which we could resolve this dispute. Indeed, moral disputes become
pointless. But most people don’t think that moral disputes are pointless and we believe
that it is worthwhile to explore our differences and work to resolve them. All of this
suggests that the claim “ethics is all a matter of personal opinion” is not an acceptable
claim and this casts doubt on ethical subjectivism.
===============0-0============
Divine Command Theory
The divine command theory (DCT) of ethics holds that an act is
either moral or immoral solely because God either commands us to
do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively. On DCT the only
thing that makes an act morally wrong is that God prohibits doing it,
and all that it means to say that torture is wrong is that God prohibits
torture. DCT is wildly implausible for reasons best illustrated by the
Euthyphro dilemma, which is based on a discussion of what it
means for an act to be holy in Plato's Euthyphro. Substituting "moral
wrongness" for "holiness" raises the dilemma: Is torture
wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit torture
because it is already wrong?
While DCT takes the the first route, Euthyphro takes the last one: If
a good God prohibits torture he does so because torture
is intrinsicly wrong, not merely because he declares torture to be
wrong by fiat. But if torture is intrinsicly wrong, then it is wrong
regardless of whether or not God exists. Either certain acts are
wrong regardless of anyone's opinions or commands (including
God's), or else all that we mean by "torture is wrong" is "God
prohibits torture." Rather than grounding the objectivity of ethics,
DCT completely undermines it by insisting that God's commands
(like those of individuals or societies) do not require justification in
terms of anyexternal principles.
DCT is thus a kind of moral relativism: what's right or wrong is what
one's God (like one's self or one's society) says is right or wrong-and there are no moral standards apart from this. Yet if God said
that 2+2=100, 2+2=100 would nonetheless be false because 2+2=4
is true regardless of what God says. The same point holds for moral
propositions like "inflicting unnecessary suffering solely for fun is
wrong." If that proposition is true, then it is true regardless of
whether God commands or prohibits inflicting such suffering.
If there is no standard of "being morally right" apart from God's
commands, then God could literally command us to do anything and
it would be right for us to do it by definition. Whatever God
commands becomes the standard of moral rightness, and there are
no moral values external to God to constrain what he would or
would not command. So if God commanded one person to rape
another, DCT entails that that rape would be moral because "doing
the right thing" is logically equivalentto "doing what God
commands." A highly implausible implication is that it is impossible
to even imagine God commanding a wrong act. What counts as
moral or immoral behavior on DCT is completely subjective-dependent upon God's fiat--and thus arbitrary.
While some retort that goodness flows from God's nature, this
merely changes the form of the dilemma: Is compassion
good because it is a part of God's nature, or is compassion a part of
God's nature because it is already good? The first option produces
problems parallel to those for DCT. If malice were a part of God's
nature, for instance, it is doubtful that malice would automatically be
good. If there are any objective moral standards at all, then a god
can be either good or evil, and the assessment of a god's character
would depend upon appealing to standards independent of any
god's commands, opinions, statements, nature, or character.
In addition to the articles below, see also related Debates, Reviews,
and Links. To purchase related reading, go to the Secular
Web Book Store.
===============0-0-==============
ETHICS – THE HARPER CASE-IN-POINT
<http://goose.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl221_intro/ethics.htm>
Ethics
By all accounts, Bertram Harper was just trying
to do the right thing. He and Virginia Harper
Man Helps Wife in Suicide, Now
had been married for 23 years. As Eric Harrison
Faces Murder Charge
reports for the Los Angeles Times, it was a good
marriage based on love and trust, put to the
Mercy death: Californians
thought Michigan law was lenient.
test by Virginia Harper’s cancer. Virginia twice
They picked wrong state at the
had cancerous lumps removed from her breast
wrong time.
and in early August, 1990, was told the cancer
ERIC HARRISON. Los Angeles Times had returned and spread to her liver. Doctors
gave her two months to two years to live. She
Los Angeles , Calif. : Sep 8,
1990 . pg. 1
had witnessed friends and families suffer
through the pain and indignity of cancer
Bertram R. Harper says his wife died
Aug. 19 exactly the way she wanted, in treatment and was determined to end her life
a motel room, with her husband and
at the time of her own choosing. In fact, she
daughter holding her hands, comforting
had previously attempted to commit suicide
her and in a state where she believed
they wouldn't be prosecuted for their
following her initial bout with cancer, but was
assistance in her death.
unsuccessful. In that earlier attempt, she went
to a hotel alone and took an overdose of
To continue reading about Bertram
Harper and his wife, click here.
sleeping pills. She didn’t die, but she was unable
to walk by herself for three days and could not
speak normally for a week. She vowed that she would not attempt suicide again
without her family nearby. Long before she was diagnosed with terminal cancer,
Ginger wrote in a letter: “I want to establish these facts. I beg my husband, Bob
Harper, to either terminate my life or help me terminate my life in the event of any
sort of disabling disease or accident happens to me. I trust his love, his wisdom, and
his intelligence implicitly. I trust him totally. In sound mind and body, Virginia
Harper.”
In the News
When Virginia Harper awoke on the morning of August 17, 1990 in excruciating
pain, she announced that it was time. She was ready to die. She, her husband, and
her daughter traveled to Michigan where, after taking a series of pills, Bertram
helped her die by placing a plastic bag over her head and securing it with rubber
bands. As Harrison ’s newspaper report makes clear, Bertram was subsequently
charged with second-degree murder on the grounds that he had intentionally
contributed to the death of another.
Were Bertram Harper’s actions in that Michigan hotel room morally justified?
Bertram argued that he acted out of love for his wife. “I knew in my heart what I did
was right. It was the only thing I could do to carry out her trust in me.” Did he do the
right thing? Were you in a similar situation, what would you do? Could you, would
you help a loved one to die? Could it ever be the right thing to do? How ought we to
determine what is the right thing to do in such a difficult situation?
With any luck, you won’t have to face the kind of difficult decision Bertram Harper
faced. And yet, as the widespread news coverage of this and other cases attests,
these kinds of incidences are more common today than ever before and, with an
aging population and the growing intervention by the medical community, any one
of us is likely to face a similarly complex moral decision. The accompanying news
article from Time Magazine included in this chapter, “Love and Let Die,” begins to
suggest just how complicated this issue is and how many different conflicting
intuitions Americans have regarding assisted suicide and the right to die.
In chapter three of this text we will focus more squarely on the issue of rights and
whether individuals have a right to die. In this chapter, our focus is on ethics and the
case of assisted suicide. As you first encounter the case of Bertram and Virginia
Harper, you’re likely to have a series of initial reactions. You might think that
Bertram acted out of love and that it could never be wrong to act on the basis of
such a noble emotion. Or perhaps you thought he owed her a duty as her husband of
23 years to be there in her time of need and help her fulfill her last wish. Bertram
likely was motivated by the desire to spare his wife unnecessary pain and suffering
and this seems a worthy motivation. Bertram and Virginia obviously trusted one
another and trust may be a morally important consideration in evaluating any act.
On the other hand, you might also believe in the sanctity of life and that what
happened in that Michigan hotel room violated that sanctity. Many people trace
their moral beliefs back to particular religious codes and maybe you believe that it is
not for us to decide when to die, a decision which should be left to God’s will.
Perhaps you suspect that neither Bertram nor Virginia Harper could ever be sure that
the she indeed had only a few months to live and that they acted rashly. Maybe their
thinking was confused by conflicting and
suspect motivations.
Beginning to Philosophize
Whether you have ever faced a problem
Poll your friends or your classmates for their
as complicated as that of Bertram and
particular perspective on the case of Bertram and
Virginia Harper’s, you have likely faced
Virginia Harper. Inquire of them what they would
situations in which similar kinds of moral do if they were in Bertram’s position and how they
concerns were raised. Each of us has had would ultimately justify their actions. Write down
the various justifications you are given and try
occasion to grapple with difficult moral
grouping them according to different kinds of
dilemmas that spark our moral thinking.
reasons cited. Identify those reasons that might
And even if you have never taken a
lead us to think Bertram Harper acted morally
philosophy course before, you probably appropriately in helping his wife die. What reasons
did your friends or classmates cite for thinking that
have some initial moral intuitions that
Bertram’s actions were morally inappropriate?
you bring to any dilemma you face.
What are your own initial thoughts on this case?
Consider the various answers you may
have received from classmates or friends regarding their initial moral reactions to
the Harper case. These initial responses represent the first step in the kind of
analysis philosophers and ethicists typically engage in. Whilemorals and ethics are
words that are often used interchangeably, we might think of morals as having to do
with those general principles and guidelines each of us carries around with us for
dealing with our everyday moral problems and concerns. Ethics is that philosophical
discipline that enters into an analysis of those moral codes and principles.
This distinction parallels as well an important distinction in ethics between
descriptive morality and normative ethics. As you think about your initial moral
responses to the case of the Harpers and perhaps compare them to those of your
friends and classmates, you are engaged in descriptively detailing how different
people, perhaps from different backgrounds and walks of life, respond to this moral
dilemma. Almost immediately you will have noticed a couple of things. First, some of
the justifications cited might strike you as weak or maybe poorly formulated. Maybe
one of your friends cited in justification of their response something you thought was
ultimately irrelevant to the case. A second thing you might have noticed as you
inventoried the various reactions to Bertram Harper’s decision to help his wife die is
a great deal of conflict, both in terms of whether people thought Bertram did the
right thing and in the kinds of justifications people have given for their thinking.
Some of those justifications might have focused on an account of duty or trust or
love. Other justifications might rely on religious grounds. Still others might point to
the consequences of Bertram’s actions. As you begin to think about these various
justifications, it becomes clear that they conflict and pull our moral intuitions in
different directions. They can’t all be right. As you begin to move from merely
describing your and your friends’ moral beliefs to critically questioning and analyzing
them, you are moving from the realm of descriptive morality to normative ethics.
Ethics asks a number of key questions about our moral beliefs meant to clarify and
systematize those beliefs. What is the nature of morality? How can we justify our
moral beliefs? Why ought we to be moral? What is the relationship between
morality and religion and the law? Are moral principles relative to specific cultures or
historical periods? While this chapter focuses on the case of Bertram and Virginia
Harper, our larger concern is to think about our own moral reasoning and look to the
tradition of ethical thinking to come to a better understanding of the resources it
provides, the tools it gives us, for attaining a clearer and more critically informed
understanding of both the Harper case and our own moral lives.
When we are in the midst of a moral dilemma, especially one as complicated and
emotionally fraught at that of the Harper’s, it is difficult to think clearly about our
moral beliefs. But in analyzing cases such as the Harper’s, or cases such as Dax
Cowart discussed in the Time Magazine article, and in marshalling our moral
intuitions and critically evaluating them, we have the opportunity to become more
self-aware of our own reasons for acting and whether those reasons are morally
defensible.
Engaging the Issues
Ethical Relativism
As you begin to grapple with the philosophical problems associated with the case of
Bertram and Virginia Harper, it’s not unexpected that you might begin to think that
there is no one answer to the question, “Did Bertram Harper do the right thing when
he helped his wife to end her life?” After all, you may have read of accounts of
nomadic cultures or of those who live in harsh climates, such as the Inuit, who
practice euthanasia in order to hasten the deaths of those individuals they can not
properly care for. Ethical relativism is the view that moral codes are relative to
particular societies or culture and that what is moral differs from one society to
another. The roots of ethical relativism are already hinted at in the following brief
selection from The Histories, by the Greek historian Herodutus:
If one were to offer men to choose out of customs in the world such as seemed to them the best, they
would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own, so convinced are they that their
own usages far surpass those of all others.… That people have this feeling about their laws may be seen
by very many proofs: among others, by the following. Darius, after he got the kingdom of [ Persia ],
called into his presence certain Greeks who were at hand, and asked what he should pay them to eat
the bodies of their fathers when they died. To which they answered that there was no sum that would
tempt them to do such a thing. He then sent for certain Indians of the race called Callatians, men who
eat their fathers, and asked them, as the Greeks stood by, and knew by the help of an interpreter all that
was said, what he should give them to burn their fathers when they died. The Indians exclaimed in
horror and asked him not to use such language. Such are the rules of custom, and Pindar was right in my
judgement when he said: `Custom is the King over all.'
Today we enjoy an even greater knowledge of the variety of cultures around the
world than did Herodutus. The twentieth-century American anthropologist Ruth
Benedict, argued that morality is often a “convenient term for socially approved
habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, ‘It is morally good,’ rather than ‘It is
habitual,’ and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of
ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous.”
Might it be the case that moral values are relative to particular cultures and that
there are no universal moral values? In order to exercise and develop your skills of
philosophical analysis, consider spending some time examining this issue more
closely. You might begin with a little brainstorming, trying to identify reasons on
either side of this issue. Perhaps discuss this issue with your classmates or friends.
Consider what you may have learned in other courses relevant to this topic. From
there, further examine those reasons you have identified and pick out those you take
to be the strongest and most persuasive. Finally, write a brief argumentative essay
that begins with the thesis statement: “Moral values are/are not relative to
particular cultures.”
As we shall see throughout this text, engaging in philosophical analysis is not easy. It
is, however, an essential task in the process of coming to a clearer understanding of
some of our most central beliefs, such as our beliefs about morality. In engaging with
the issue of ethical relativism, you hopefully became more aware of some of the
important issues that need to be assessed before you could embrace the thesis of
ethical relativism. You also have begun to develop your own skills at reasoning and
writing argumentative essays, skills that are central to the discipline of philosophy
and which will likely play an important role in your success as a student of
philosophy. Let’s further exercise those skills by engaging with another issue relevant
to our consideration of the Harpers.
Returning again to our initial assessment of the Harper case, it is likely that in early
discussions of Bertram’s actions, someone may have voiced the following argument:
“Bertram Harper simply did what he thought was right. Who are we to judge his
actions as moral or immoral? Each of us has different ideas about what is right or
wrong and each of us has to decide for ourselves what ought to be done in this
situation. There is no one right thing to do. It’s up to the individual to decide what’s
right. It’s all really just a matter of one’s opinion” This argument succinctly states a
view which philosophers have called ethical subjectivism, the view that an act is right
simply because a person judges it to be right. If Bertram’s actions expressed his
subjective preferences, then they were the right thing to do. As you might have
noticed, the approach of the ethical subjectivist to our moral dilemma is very similar
to the approach of the ethical relativist, only now, rather than arguing that moral
beliefs are relative to cultures, the argument is that moral beliefs are relative to or
determined by individual preferences or opinions. You might notice, for instance, in
reading “Love and Let Die” all the different opinions expressed by individuals in the
article. This could lead you to conclude that there is no right answer to the question
of assisted suicide and that it is all a matter of one’s opinion.
How does this stand up as an analysis of the Harper case? Not very well. Consider a
relatively elementary argument:
1. Ethics is all a matter of personal opinion.
2. Bertram Harper was of the opinion that assisting his wife to die was right.
Therefore,
3. Assisting his wife to die was right.
This argument is such that if you accept the first two claims, you ought to accept
the third claim. In the addendum to this chapter we will discuss this and other
features of arguments. But ought we to accept the first two claims? Clearly, the
second claim is not problematic. Being charitable and taking Bertram at his word, he
thought he was doing the right thing. Is the first claim acceptable? One way that we
might evaluate the acceptability of a claim is by considering its implications. If we
think that a claim brings with it unacceptable implications, then it’s reasonable to
question the acceptability of that claim. Does the first claim bring with it any
acceptable implications? Consider two. First, if ethics is all a matter of personal
opinion, we lose any grounds on which to judge certain practices as objectively
immoral. When terrorists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center , people around
the world morally condemned their actions. We routinely and unproblematically
condemn such actions as immoral. If we were to accept the claim that ethics is a
matter of personal opinion, these moral condemnations would be pointless.
Secondly and relatedly, imagine that it’s your opinion that Bertram was right to help
his wife die but that a classmate of yours is of the opinion that Bertram was wrong to
help his wife die. If the first claim above is correct, then Bertram was both right and
wrong to help his wife die, which on the face of it appears contradictory. We might
resolve this contradiction by suggesting that it’s only for you that Bertram was right
and only for your classmate that Bertram was wrong. But when faced with
disagreements like this, we often work to try and resolve them. If ethics is merely a
matter of opinion, there’s no basis on which we could resolve this dispute. Indeed,
moral disputes become pointless. But most people don’t think that moral disputes
are pointless and we believe that it is worthwhile to explore our differences and
work to resolve them. All of this suggests that the claim “ethics is all a matter of
personal opinion” is not an acceptable claim and this casts doubt on ethical
subjectivism.
Reengaging the Issues
Ethical Relativism
Philosophical analysis often proceeds according that old adage, “two steps forward,
one step back.” To fully engage with an issue, you need to return to it regularly,
rethinking and reevaluating it in light of new knowledge. With each of the readings
included in this chapter, for instance, you should return to the case of Bertram and
Virginia Harper and reevaluate it from the perspective of that particular moral
theorist, thereby deepening and enriching your understanding of the case.
Now that we have briefly worked through an analysis of ethical subjectivism, revisit
your previous work on ethical relativism. Can you further extend your analysis of
ethical relativism, using this account of ethical subjectivism as an example, and refine
your basis for either accepting or rejecting the claim that moral values are relative to
one’s culture?
In
the
News
“Love
and
Let
Die”
To come to a fuller and deeper understanding of the kinds of issues and problems
that arise when thinking about the morality of helping loved ones to die, it is useful
to have some background knowledge on the problem. While you personally may
never have faced the kind of difficult decision faced by the Harpers, reading about
related cases provides some insight into the relevant issues. In the following Time
Magazine article by Nancy Gibbs, a number of important cases are discussed,
including the groundbreaking case of Nancy Cruzan. As you read through this article,
there are a number of things you might read for.
1. Try to identify any relevant material that might be useful to your further
evaluating the case of the Harpers.
2. Pay attention to the different perspectives and interests that are addressed in
the article, such as the perspective of legislators or physicians. What other
perspectives are addressed?
3. Think about the role religion plays in people’s attitudes toward assisted
suicide and euthanasia.
4. Consider the relevance of polls such as those cited in the article by Gibbs.
5. Highlight the various moral justifications discussed in the article, such as duty
or consequences.
To read the Time magazine article, click on the link above.
As you initially reflected on the issue of whether Bertram Harper did the right thing
in helping his wife die, and read and reflected on Nancy Gibbs’ article “Love and Let
Die,” you may have noticed that there are several distinct approaches that
individuals routinely take in their analysis of moral dilemmas. As we try to identify
what we ought to do in a complex moral situation, there are some common appeals
we often make. For one, we often appeal to the consequences of our actions. As
Bertram Harper considered whether he should help his wife die, he likely reasoned
that doing so would lessen if not eliminate Virginia ’s pain and suffering and that this
is generally a good thing. Moral theories that maintain that the morality of an action
depends upon its consequences are known as consequentialist or teleological
theories, from the word teleology, having to do with ends or purposes. In the
selections included in this chapter, John Stuart Mill’s account of utilitarianism
provides a very clear example of a teleological theory. Utilitarian moral theories
argue that an act is right to the extent that it produces beneficial consequences; in
Mill’s case, maximizing happiness. Teleological theories may also focus on economic
consequences. Gibbs notes, for instance, that as health-care costs rise, legislators,
insurers, and physicians are having to calculate how best to ration medical care.
As you think about the morality of assisted suicide, you might be opposed to
making calculations on the basis of happiness or economic costs or any other
consequence. Perhaps you reason that moral principles shouldn’t be based on
consequences or that this risks undermining the sanctity of life. There might be some
acts which are simply wrong, regardless of their consequences. Moral theories that
maintain that acts are right or wrong in and of themselves, independent of their
consequences, are known as deontological theories, from the Greek word for
duty, deon. The most famous deontological moral theory is Immanuel Kant’s account
of the categorical imperative. In distinction to Mill’s emphasis on maximizing
happiness, Kant argues that the moral individual is the person who simply does his or
her moral duty for no other reason than that they recognize it as their duty. The
selection from W. D. Ross also emphasizes the role of duty in ethics. If your analysis
of Bertram Harper focused on his duty to help his wife or his duty to recognize the
value of human life, you were perhaps motivated by these kinds of deontological
approaches to ethics.
From another perspective, perhaps you approached the case of Bertram and Virginia
Harper by focusing not on the consequences of their act nor on their moral duty but
by considering the kind of character they exhibited in light of their situation. Maybe
you reasoned that Virginia should have shown more hope and fortitude in the face of
her difficult struggle. Perhaps you applauded Bertram’s courage in helping his wife
carry out her final wishes. Maybe you reasoned that the Harpers acted too rashly
and should have shown more wisdom and prudence in responding to their situation.
Ethical theories that focus on these and other aspects of a person’s character are
known as virtue ethics. The virtue ethicist argues that a central concern in our moral
lives should be on developing the right kind of character. Virtue theories were
common in both Greek and early Christian philosophy and you may still recognize
today the importance given to the various cardinal virtues. In the readings collected
in this chapter, Aristotle offers us the clearest example of a virtue ethics, arguing for
the importance of developing a sound character which habitually acts on the
virtuous mean between two vices. Some philosophers maintain that contemporary
feminist ethical theories that focus on care and love, such as Nel Noddings’, included
in this chapter, are a variety of virtue ethics.
Engaging the Issues
Divine Command Theory
As you prepare to turn to the readings included in this chapter, you might notice that
none of them articulates a view that you could suppose a lot of individuals hold,
namely that what makes an act right is God’s commanding one to do it. Nancy Gibbs
points out in her article “Love and Let Die,” that for thousands of individuals, their
stance on mercy killing is based on theological concerns. Moral theories that identify
the moral realm with the will of God are known as divine command theories. A
deontological theory, divine command theories take God’s will to be the foundation
of morality. What is right is what God commands and what is wrong is what God
forbids. Such a view is suggested by Malcolm Muggeridge’s comments in “Love and
Let Die,” when he notes, “Our Lord healed the sick, raised Lazarus from the dead,
gave back sanity to the deranged, but never did He practice or envisage killing as part
of the mercy that held possession of His heart.” Divine command theories are also
suggested by those individuals who look to religious texts such as the Bible or the
Koran as the basis for moral beliefs. For many Americans, the Ten Commandments
provide a foundation not only for one’s religious beliefs but one’s moral beliefs as
well.
Divine command theory raises an interesting and thorny issue for the student of
philosophy: whether morality necessarily rests on the will of God. As an exercise in
further developing your philosophical skills of analysis, try and identify some of the
reasons on both sides of this complex issue. What are some reasons that might lead
us to think that morality does rest on God’s will? What are the weaknesses of this
view? After examining both sides of this issue, write a brief essay that begins with
the thesis, “Morality does/does not necessarily depend on God’s commands.”
It is important to note that one need not ascribe to a divine command theory of
ethics merely because one is religious or has strong religious beliefs. In this chapter,
Bishop Joseph Butler defends a moral theory that while making room for the
significance of God doesn’t identify morality with God’s will. Similarly, Chapter Two
includes a selection from Saint Thomas Aquinas in which he spells out his natural law
theory, which maintains that by virtue of how God created us, we have access to
basic moral principles consistent with our nature.
In the News
What Makes Us Moral
Time Magazine regularly returns to issues dealing with ethics and in this cover story
from a 2007 issue, explores what science can tell us about morality.
As you can tell, normative ethics comes in a sometimes bewildering variety of flavors. The readings
collected in this chapter provide us with an array of approaches and perspectives on moral theory that
offer a range of answers to the key questions in ethics. What unifies them is their concern to respond to
those key philosophical questions that arise when we begin to analyze the moral realm: What are the
moral principles by which we ought to live our lives? What is the good life? What makes an act good or
bad? As you work your way through some of the readings included in this chapter, you should keep
these questions in the back of your mind and regularly return to them. With each assigned reading, try
to identify those basic concerns, principles, and concepts a particular philosopher uses in articulating
their response to these key philosophical questions. Each of these readings defines a different
framework or lens through which we might approach ethics and your task as a reader is to try and
discern the key elements of that framework. You might find it useful to keep in mind the basic
distinctions between the different types of moral theory: virtue ethics, teleological ethics, and
deontological ethics. You also may be helped in your reading if you try and determine how you might
use each reading to address a significant moral problem. Think of each reading as a tool box providing us
with a number of tools for analyzing a case such as Bertram and Virginia Harper’s. As you make your way
through a selection, ask yourself how this particular philosopher might approach the case of the
Harpers. Generally, philosophical writing takes places at a highly theoretical level and philosophers don’t
as a rule provide us with many concrete examples. That doesn’t mean that you can’t provide the
examples yourself. Indeed, one good test of your comprehension of a particular reading is your ability to
put to use a philosophical theory, to show how in practice you might use a particular moral theory by
applying it to a concrete case such as the Harpers.
Thinking and
Writing
Philosophically
The Case of the Harpers
Once you have read, reviewed, and thought about
some of the philosophical theories included in the
reading selections in this chapter, return to the case of
the Harpers and reconsider it in light of your new-found
knowledge. Review the initial analysis you and your
classmates may have done in assessing this case.
Consider how your perspective might have changed in
light of your further consideration of moral theory.
Return to the newspaper article that began this chapter
and imagine that you are now reading it in the morning
newspaper while having your breakfast. The moral
dilemma of helping a loved one die captures your
attention and you decide to write a letter to the editor
addressing the issue of whether Bertram Harper did the
right thing when he helped Virginia die. You begin, “To
the Editor: I am writing in response to Eric Harrison’s
article ‘Man Helps Wife in Suicide, Now Faces Charges.’
…” How would you continue your letter?