Download Ethics - TypePad

ETHICS
A Unique Area of Knowledge
IN TOK IT’S NEVER
THAT SIMPLE...
It just depends
The difference between what is moral and what
is ethical
• In TOK, we will consider morality to be our sense of right and wrong
and ethics to be the area of knowledge that examines the sense of
morality and the moral codes we develop from it. Since all of us are
involved throughout our lives in moral decision making, ethics is an
AOK whose subject matter concerns us personally. And it is to your
own thoughts that we turn next.
• Reflection:
• How did you gain your own sense of right and wrong? How do you
justify it?
Discussion
• Exchange your ideas in small groups, looking for points of similarity
and differences.
• Conclude by making a summary list of the sources suggested in
your discussion.
What is it that makes ethics different from other
AOK’s
• It is still studying human action- but studies not how human beings
do act (human science) nor how they have acted in the past (history)
but rather how they should act.
• How very much like many works in the arts. We have numerous
works in the arts which apply value judgments of “right” and
“wrong” to human action. They praise, condemn, or counsel; they
declare or imply that people should act or should not act in
particular ways.
• However, many works of art make no judgment at all (consider
abstract art). Moreover, the judgments are particular to the works
themselves.
• Ethics, on the other hand, takes moral judgments as its only topic
and seeks to be general- to comment not just on individual stories
but to comment on them all- to give general perspectives that can
apply to particular cases.
What does the critic in ethics examine?
• Ethics has no equivalent area that is specifically its own.
• It treats instead a specific aspect of all the subject matter and
methods of all areas of knowledge.
• It examines our everyday decisions and actions from the most
private and personal to the most public and political.
• It surveys all that human beings do and persistently asks questions
such as, “ What does it mean to be good?” “What should I do or not
do?” “How do we justify our moral decisions?” And then it explores
possible ways of thinking about the questions and possible ways to
answer.
• Ethics is essentially an area of criticism, or formalized critical
thinking, applied to all that people do, and possibly even think.
So, what are we dealing with anyways?
• Ethics, then, deals with moral choices- choices we make that reflect
our values. Choices that meet with approval are “moral” and those
that meet with disapproval are “immoral. ” Here, we use the term
“moral choice” to mean any choice in accordance with our moral
values, whether we applaud or condemn that decision.
• Almost any choice, however, has the potential to be a moral choice
within a particular context (consider items as simple as how we
dress, what we eat, and how we greet one another).
• Although it is difficult to disentangle our moral choices from those
which are amoral- which are subject to no moral judgment- a few
characteristics have been proposed to distinguish them. Consider
these yourself, and decide whether you think they draw the line
successfully between the amoral and the moral.
Possible Criterion 1
• For the choice to be subject to any kind of moral judgment,
whether condemned or praised, it has to be a conscious and
deliberate choice.
• Possible Argument 1: If you accept this premise, you may argue that
accidents are amoral (cannot be judged).
• For example, actions taken under threat or force.
Possible Criterion 2
• For an action to be subject to any kind of moral judgment, it has to
affect someone else other than the person acting.
• Possible Argument 2: If you accept this premise, you may argue that
self-mutilation, taking drugs, or joining a cult are amoral because
the person acting only affects himself.
• In ethics there is no truth of the matter. (But that is not to say that
all ethical claims are equally acceptable—some are better than
others)
• For some people—for many people—that can be very frustrating,
and as a result, they simply reject the whole business. Consider this
“the flight from the grey”: people can’t understand something in
the simple terms of black and white, so they pretend it doesn’t exist
or isn’t important.
• Keep in mind that you don’t have to figure out the absolute single
right thing to do; you just have to figure out as much as you can.
You don’t have to make the best decision; just try to make better
decisions, more carefully considered decisions.
• Furthermore, evaluating arguments about ethical issues is no
different from evaluating other sorts of arguments. So, as with
other arguments, when you are presented with an argument
about an ethical issue, go through the same steps: identify the
issue, identify the point, and identify the premises supporting that
point (both those explicitly stated and those assumed); then
evaluate the premises, considering whether or not they’re true or
acceptable, whether or not they’re relevant, and whether or not
they’re sufficient to support the claim.
• Then decide whether the argument is strong enough for you to
accept its conclusion, usually a judgment about whether something
is right or wrong.
• As for forming our own moral judgments, making our own
arguments about ethical issues, unfortunately, ethically speaking,
most of us are quite undeveloped; we haven’t updated our
childhood training.
• It doesn’t have much in the way of conceptual complexity and
subtlety; it doesn’t make the fine distinctions that are necessary;
it’s not as precise as it needs to be. For example, “Don’t steal” is
fine unless you’re starving or the person from whom you’re stealing
doesn’t rightfully possess what you’re stealing. Then things get a
little difficult.
•
•
•
Many ethical arguments attempt to establish a general principle that can
then be used as a guide for decisions about moral right and wrong. Many
such arguments can be put into deductive form, usually with a universal
positive premise that articulates some general ethical principle. To this
extent, they are similar to categorical deductive arguments of the form “All
A are B, C is an A, therefore C is a B”—“All A are B” is the general principle
(for example, “All stealing is wrong”).
Also, these sorts of argument involve definition to a great degree, and great
pains are taken to establish a definition that is sufficiently precise with
respect to features and conditions, as well as sufficiently inclusive and
exclusive For example, “Don’t steal” is a general principle, and in order to
use that as a guide for decisions, you must have a clear definition of what
counts as stealing (for example, is it stealing if the person you’re taking
from doesn’t rightfully possess what you’re taking?).
You’ll need to make an argument to support the principles you advocate as
guides for decision-making. For example, why exactly is stealing wrong?
Upon reflecting
• Overall, ethics demands the most from you in terms of reflection on
your own ideas, willingness to exchange views with others, and
readiness, even if you own views are firm, to listen for what
justifications persuade others. What touches us most deeply can be
contestable.
• Ethics often appears messy and confusing. It is not a weakness in
ethics but a characteristic of what it takes as a subject. It is dealing
with not only human beings but human values and trying, despite
the immense complexity, to give an understanding of moral choice.
How Do We Know What is Right and Wrong?
Only four men survived the ship wrecked Mignonette in 1884, floating for
three weeks in the Atlantic in a lifeboat. On the 19th day the captain
Thomas Dudley suggested they drew lots to decide who would be killed and
eaten, but one man objected. On the 20th day Dudley told the others to
look away, offered a prayer and cut the throat of the cabin boy, aged 17,
who was sick from drinking seawater. They ate his body. Four days later
they were rescued by another ship and the three survivors were charged
with murder in the law case The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.
It is significant that murder and cannibalism could be argued to be
reasonable in this case. On utilitarian grounds the actions of Dudley are
justified because they promote the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. However, using deontological ethical theories, murder is wrong in
itself, regardless of the consequences for others. If cannibalism is
disgusting and our emotional response is that what happened is intuitively
wrong, we might ask ourselves if our disgust is reasonable? Would we have
done otherwise? Or could the case be put that Dudley acted rationally?
• In TOK ethics, it is tempting to conclude that because there is no
agreement about standards of right and wrong, it follows that
there is no knowledge in ethics. After all, individuals and cultures do
not have the same moral standards. However, our ethical
judgments are just that - judgments. We can make better or worse
judgments in ethics and our task in TOK is to know the difference.
Paul Grobstein stated that: "there is no such thing as 'right', the
very concept needs to be replaced with 'progressively less wrong.'
• " So although certain knowledge in ethics is hard to find, we can
make progress by arriving at moral judgments that are considered.
So in your response to the case above, ask yourself 'why do I think
that?'
• In ethics we are dealing with a plurality of truths. It'll be worth questioning
the basis there might be for ethical truth across cultures. What are good
reasons for holding our moral beliefs? Pay close attention to the words used
to express moral viewpoints; we know that in the language of war, 'one man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', and in the above case, 'one man's
cannibalistic murderer is another man's hero with superior survival instincts.'
Perhaps the challenge in TOK ethics is to look for what moral knowledge
cultures might have in common. Even the notion of right and wrong is shared
across cultures, even if the standards to which this approximates, differs. The
idea of shared values is embodied in the idea of The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948).
So to conclude, tolerance of other people's views is a fundamental principle
but it does not follow that all moral views are of equal value. Freedom of
speech and the right to express your own view is essential, but there may be
some moral views that are not as sound as others. The task of ethics is to
examine the grounds on which we hold our moral beliefs. How do we decide
about the case above; killing a person as a means to an end is objectionable,
but the instinct to survive in extreme conditions might demand we re-think
our moral paradigms? It's for you to decide.