Download NAME: AGANABA WOYENGIDOUBARA IKIAEBI COLLEGE: LAW

NAME: AGANABA WOYENGIDOUBARA IKIAEBI
COLLEGE: LAW
COURSE CODE: GST113
COURSE LECTURER: MR. OLADIPO TEMIDAYO
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER TWO.
According to Aristotle’s book “politics” man is a political animal who has the need to interact
with others in a social environment in other to survive. According to Aristotle anyone who has
no need of his fellow man is either a beast or a god. However this need of man to live in a
community amongst others brings with itself some problems (challenges). Problems that have to
do with his code of conduct in his interaction with his fellow man. Thomas Hobbes states that the
absence of this codes brings about a state of nature where life is “nasty, brutish and short”.
Therefore in other for us to prevent such a situation where there is a “war of all against all” every
society needs to set standards on how its occupants must behave in accordance to in order to
promote the well-being of all within the society. However, in a society the occupants are not only
expected to behave in a certain way towards other inhabitants but also to other things which hold
a sense of value. Therefore the moral code of a society covers the attitude of people towards each
other, animals, and the environment in general and in some cases, celestial beings. The
realization of the importance of these moral codes in a society is what has led to the study of
what is good or bad, wrong or right, just or unjust otherwise known as Ethics.
ETHICS AND ITS GOALS
In Ethics, the analytical and critical tools of philosophy are aimed at human conducts to find out
whether things are Bad or good. Its main aim is to find out exactly what/ bring to light the nature
of morality and what exactly the right judgment entails. It is, according to a definition, “An
inquiry into the moral worth of human conduct. It deals with any identifiable human conduct in
all facets of life. This is the reason why there is ethics in nearly everything. This shows that there
are diverse ethical challenges in various disciplines that require effective response that will
ensure that morality is sustained in such areas of human existence. Ethics is however a
RATIONAL inquiry into the grounds of moral conduct which stands in contrast to all the
irrational ways of gaining insight to morality.
It is practiced with the belief that human beings are rational and as rational beings they will
identify what is right or what is wrong based on adequate reasons and relevant evidence. It is this
belief that makes ethicists to develop arguments that are meant to persuade people on how to
evaluate moral actions to be undertaken and why a manner of thinking about an action is to be
performed over and above other manners. Therefore the main aim of ethics is to provide humans
the standards with which to identify what is good or wrong. These arguments are based on
otherwise arguable reasons and evidence. This aim shows that the divide that ethics draws
between actions categorizes all actions into two. An action is either good or bad, moral or
immoral or right or wrong. By categorizing actions into two ethics seeks to highlight which
actions are good and should be encouraged and those that are bad and should be avoided. In
highlighting the action that should be embraced and those to be avoided, ethics highlights to the
principle of good behaviour that people should subscribe to in their interaction with others in the
society. Therefore, it encourages people to live lives where they will not only be at peace with
themselves but also in complete harmony with those around them. Therefore it is an instrument
of ensuring SOCIAL ORDER. A good knowledge of ethics also provides a guide for political
leaders, civil servants and other professionals to conduct the affairs of a group of people in the
right and just manner. Concerning the main and ultimate goal of ethics moral philosophers
therefore handle two main tasks.
1 Presenting us with better understanding of concepts employed in moral discourse
2 Developing theories that people can appeal in making moral decisions and which serves as
justifications for human conduct. The first task falls under the sub-branch of meta-ethics and the
second one falls under the other sub-branch called normative ethics.
METAETHICS.
According to Bodurin, the first step in philosophical reasoning is conceptual analysis. Metaethics
is therefore the critical analysis of the concept of ethics. In engenders a better understanding of
these concepts by analyzing them so people are in a better position to interrogate principles of
action in ethical reasoning. The issues in Metaethics are not concerned in determining the
wrongness or rightness of an action but rather with terms such as right, wrong, good, bad,
morality, and moral judgments among many others. It sheds more light on the concepts of ethics
therefore it will be easy to identify whether human conduct falls in one place or the other. It is
also concerned with the meaning of ethical statements. Emotivism which is a metaethical theory
will have us interpret a statement like” stealing is wrong” as revealing the emotion of the speaker
and at the same time a call to sharing the same sentiment towards the idea of stealing as the
person makes the claim. Another metaethical theory called prescriptivism holds that when an
ethical statement is made, the speaker is therefore commanding the public to either refrain or not
refrain from it.
Some metaethical theories however seek to explain the origin and justification of moral
standards. One of these metaethical theories is the divine command. This theory classifies what
is good or bad based on what God says. If God says it is wrong then it is wrong but if He says
that it is right then it is and can therefore be done. Proponents of this theory hence see God as the
source from which moral codes are derived.
Another metaethical theory that addresses issues relating to the justification and origin of moral
standards is ethical relativity which states that individual, culture or epoch justifies the moral
worth of an action. What is right/wrong varies from person to person, society to society and time
to time. Justification of moral codes is gotten from the society a person is raised up in, the time
in which he lived and also his personal belief system.
NORMATIVE ETHICS
This is the branch of ethics that deals with the issues of determining whether an action is morally
right or wrong. We are all looking for standards we can adopt as guides when making moral
decisions. The main focus of the division of ethics is to determine principles that ought to
determine human conduct or forming rules that directly control the actions of human institutions
and ways of life.
In order to do this, moral philosophers have put in place various normative theories
recommending what ought to be considered in determining whether an action is a wrong or right.
The first is the Teleological. It depends on the consequences of an action to determine whether
an action is right or wrong. Simply put, an action is wrong if it brings bad results but right if it
brings about good results. However there is no agreement among the proponents of this theory as
to what qualifies a result as good or bad. Some say that it is the ability of an action to bring
pleasure that determines if it is good but if it brings pain it is bad. This is called the Hedonist
view while the other view people have that it is when an action brings about happiness that it can
be classified as good but if it brings about unhappiness it is bad is called the Eudemonism view.
There is however still the problem of determining who the pleasure or happiness should be
enjoyed by before regarding an action as morally right. Should it be the doer, the receiver or is
there no distinction between the performer and the receiver of such action in determining
whether an action is right or wrong.
Egoism believes that the pleasure should be enjoyed by the performer of the action, altruism
believes that the pleasure should be enjoyed by the receiver of such action while altruism
believes that there is no distinction between the pleasure received by the performer of the action
and the receivers. Teleological ethical theories however have some shortcomings.
1 How can we foresee the outcome of our actions?
2 We cannot also foresee which characters will benefit ourselves or others.
3 It makes it appear that the end justifies the means. If an action is done with bad motif but has
however a good consequence, it cannot be classified as morally good.
Deontological ethical theories reject the use of the outcome of an action in judging its rightness
or wrongness. Moderate Deontological theories hold that although consequences matter but only
as one of the factors relevant in determining if an action is morally right or wrong while extreme
Deontological theories completely rejects the relevance of consequences in determining if an
action is good or bad.
Generally, deontological ethical theories place importance place importance on rule, motive and
nature of the action itself in deciding its rightness and wrongness.