Download Ethics - Lagemaat - TOK-eisj

ETHICS
Useful tools for helping us to think about and
make sense of our values
Controversial social questions
which force us to think about our
values
•
•
•
•
Is abortion ever justified?
Should drugs be legalized?
Are there limits to free speech?
Is there such a thing as a just war?
? They do not always seem to have a
straightforward answer…..
Overview:
• 1. Nature and limitations of moral reasoning.
• 2. Two threats to ethics – relativism and
self-interest theory.
• 3. Relativism claims that there is no such
thing as moral knowledge and self-interest
theory believes that we are incapable of
acting on it.
• 4. The threats are not as serious as they
appear.
• 5. Three theories of ethics: religious ethics,
duty ethics, and utilitarianism.
Moral reasoning
• Some people are sceptical about the
possibility of moral knowledge claim that
moral values and judgements are simply
matters of taste.
• We expect people to justify their valuejudgements and support them with
reasons.
• A simple model: Commonly agreed moral
principle.
• Cheating on a test is wrong
• Tom cheated on the test
• Therefore what Tom did was wrong.
•
When we argue about ethical questions,
there are two things we often look at:
1. Whether people are being consistent in
their judgments,
(Trying to see whether or not someone is
being consistent is complicated by the
fact that they might not only apply moral
rules inconsistently, but also hold
inconsistent principles)
2. Whether the alleged facts on which those
judgments are based are true.
• Facts: All kinds of facts are likely to be
relevant to our moral judgments, and many
arguments that initially look like disputes
about values turn to be disputes about
facts.
• E.g: If we are arguing about whether or
not Smith behaved badly at the party on
Saturday night, our disagreement may turn
on to the question of whether or not
Smith punched Jones on the nose.
• Arguing about the pros and cons of capital
punishment, our disagreement may turn on
the question of whether or not it is an
effective deterrent.
Moral relativism
• Our values are determined by the
society we grow up in, and there is no
universal values.
• Moral values are simply customs or
conventions that vary from culture to
culture.
• ‘Ethics’ and ‘morality’ are both derived
from words that originally meant
‘custom’.
Arguments for moral relativism
• 1. The diversity argument – The sheer
variety of moral practices suggests that
there are no objective moral values. E.g:
keeping slaves, burning widows, cannibalism,
etc.
• 2. The lack of foundations argument –
• There does not seem to be an independent
‘moral reality’ against which we can test our
values to see if they are true or false; and
this suggests that they are simply the result
of the way we have been brought up and
conditioned by society.
Arguments against moral relativism
• 1. Despite appearances, there are infact
some core values that have been
accepted by all cultures. There is
evidence to suggest that every society
has some kind of rules to limit violence,
protect property and promote honesty.
• 2. We can infact justify our values.
Self-interest theory
• Human beings are always and
everywhere selfish.
• Selfish behaviour is usually seen as
the opposite of moral behaviour, this
theory suggests that, even if there
are objective moral values, we are
incapable of living up to them.
Arguments for self-interest theory
•
•
•
•
1. Definitional argument
2. Evolutionary argument
3. Hidden benefits argument
4. Fear of punishment argument
Utilitarianism
• Actions are right to the degree that they
tend to promote the greatest good for the
greatest number.
• Maximise happiness.
• by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham
• We are unclear about what constitutes
"the greatest good."
• Mill defined "the good" in terms of wellbeing (Aristotle's eudaimonia).
Objections
•
•
•
•
•
1. It is not always clear what the outcome of an action will
be, nor is it always possible to determine who will be
affected by it. Judging an action by the outcome is
therefore hard to do beforehand.
2. It is very difficult to quantify pleasures for cost/benefit
analysis (but since this only has to be done on a comparative
scale, this may not be as serious an objection as it at first
seems).
3. The calculation required to determine the right is both
complicated and time consuming. Many occasions will not
permit the time and many individuals may not even be
capable of the calculations.
4. Since the greatest good for the greatest number is
described in aggregate terms, that good may be achieved
under conditions that are harmful to some, so long as that
harm is balanced by a greater good.
5. The theory fails to acknowledge any individual rights that
could not be violated for the sake of the greatest good.
Indeed, even the murder of an innocent person would seem
to be condoned if it served the greater number.
• In response to objections, some proponents
have proposed a modification of the theory.
• Let us call the original form:
• Act Utilitarianism-each individual action is
to be evaluated directly in terms of the
utility principle.
• The proposed improvement is:
• Rule Utilitarianism- behavior is evaluated by
rules that, if universally followed would lead
to the greatest good for the greatest
number. (Rule utilitarianism could address the
fourth and fifth objections)
Student Assignment
•
•
•
•
•
Graded on:
Clarity
Critical Thought
Content Descriptors
Task: Explore the problem presented,
come up with possible courses of action,
and then reach a reasoned judgment
supported by a good argument for the
course of action which you perceive as the
most ethical
Essay
• 1000 word essay