Difference between revisions of "Ethics" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m ({{Contracted}})
(24 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Contracted}}
+
{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}{{Copyedited}}
:''For the book of the same name, see [[Ethics (book)]]; for the [[Star Trek: The Next Generation]] episode, see [[Ethics (TNG episode)|Ethics (TNG Episode)]].''
+
Ethics (from the Greek ''ethos'' – custom) in the sense of systems of value and codes of conduct have always been part of human societies. In this sense, there are many distinct ethical traditions corresponding to the major cultural and religious divisions, such as [[Indian ethics|Indian]], [[Buddhist ethics|Buddhist]], [[Chinese ethics|Chinese]], [[Jewish ethics|Jewish]], [[Christian ethics|Christian]], and [[Islamic ethics]]. These are the ethical traditions that most people in the world look to for guidance about how to live.
  
'''Ethics''' (from Greek ''[[ethos|ἦθος]]'' meaning "custom") is the branch of [[axiology]], one of the four major branches of [[philosophy]], which attempts to understand the nature of [[morality]]; to distinguish that which is [[right]] from that which is [[wrong]].  The [[Western philosophy|Western tradition]] of ethics is sometimes called '''moral philosophy'''.
+
In the Western intellectual tradition, philosophical ethics begins with the Greek [[Sophists]] of the fifth century B.C.E., who started to reflect on their ethical codes and values, and raised critical questions about morality, such as how it came to exist, and why one should follow its guidelines. Many of the same questions that preoccupied ancient ethical thinkers continue to be debated down to the present day.
 +
{{toc}}
 +
''Philosophical ethics'' (also called moral philosophy) is divided into three main areas of inquiry: (1) [[meta-ethics]], (2) [[normative ethics]], and (3) [[applied ethics]]. Meta-ethics is a study of the nature of ethics. A meta-ethical study is concerned, amongst other things, with the meaning and objectivity of moral judgments, and how human beings can come to know what is right. By contrast, ''normative ethics'' aims to provide specific guidelines for action by constructing theories about what makes actions right and wrong. ''Applied ethics'' involves the application of normative ethical theories to particular issues of practical concern such as [[abortion]], [[euthanasia]], criminal [[punishment]], and the treatment of [[animals]].
  
== The first social science ==
+
==Meta-ethics==
Assumptions about ethical underpinnings of human behavior are reflected in every [[social science]], including: [[anthropology]] because of the complexities involved in relating one [[culture]] to another; [[economics]] because of its role in the distribution of scarce resources; [[political science]] because of its role in allocating [[Political power|power]]; [[sociology]] because of its roots in the dynamics of groups; [[law]] because of its role in codifying ethical constructs like [[mercy]] and [[punishment]]; [[criminology]] because of its role in rewarding ethical behavior and discouraging unethical behavior; and [[psychology]] because of its role in defining, understanding, and treating unethical behavior.
+
[[Meta-ethics]] is an inquiry into the nature of ethics. The prefix ‘meta’ suggests ‘aboutness’, as for example in the word ‘meta-psychology’, which is the study of [[psychology]]—what it is as a discipline—rather than a study in psychology. Simplifying somewhat, we can say that a meta-inquiry is a study of a study. Meta-ethics is then the study of ethics: it is concerned with determining the nature of judgments of moral right or wrong, good and bad. It is not concerned with finding out which actions or things are right and wrong, or which states are good and bad, but with understanding the meaning of concepts of right and wrong, good and bad. Meta-ethics does not ask whether lying is always wrong. Rather, it tries to ascertain whether there really is difference between right and wrong, or tries to clarify what it means to say that an action is right or wrong. A meta-ethical inquiry may ask: What, if anything, makes a judgment that lying is always wrong, true (or false)? One possible answer canvassed by meta-ethics is that moral rules are nothing other than social conventions of particular cultural groups. This entails that the judgment that lying is always wrong is simply an expression of the beliefs of a group of people, and it is their beliefs about the matter that make it true. This view is called [[moral relativism]].
  
Ethics has also been extended to the hard sciences, such as [[biology]] (as [[bioethics]]) and [[ecology]] (as [[environmental ethics]]). As these fields become more complex and deal with more situations, the application of ethics in those fields can also become more complex.
+
In the Anglophone world, twentieth century philosophers focused tremendously on meta-ethics rather than normative ethics. This meta-ethical agenda was due, firstly, to the enormous influence of [[G.E. Moore]]’s ''Principia Ethica'', and secondly, to the emergence of [[logical positivism]]. The logical positivists embraced a theory of the linguistic meaning called the [[principle of verifiability]]. This principle says that a sentence is strictly meaningful only if it expresses something that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical observation. For example, the sentence “there are llamas in India” is meaningful because it could be verified or falsified by actually checking whether there are llamas in India. One important implication of the principle of verification is that moral judgments are strictly meaningless. The sentence “murder is wrong” cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical experience. We may find that people believe that murder is wrong, or disapprove of murder, but there is nothing in world corresponding to ‘wrongness’ that could be investigated by empirical science. Therefore, according to the logical positivists, all evaluative judgments are meaningless (see [[Fact and Value]]). This disturbing conclusion led many philosophers to set aside questions of normative ethics and to concentrate on more fundamental questions of the meaningfulness and objectivity of moral judgments.  
  
In [[analytic philosophy]], ethics is traditionally divided into three fields: [[Meta-ethics]], [[Normative ethics]] (including [[value theory]] and the [[theory of conduct]]) and [[applied ethics]] – which is seen to be derived, top-down, from normative and thus meta-ethics.
+
[[Emotivism]] and [[prescriptivism]] are influential meta-ethical theories that may be understood as attempts to make sense of ethical language while adhering to the principle of verification. If all evaluative judgments are meaningless, then what are people doing when they say that kindness is good, or that cruelty is bad? Emotivists such as [[A.J. Ayer]] and [[C.L. Stevenson]], hold that evaluations express the speaker’s feelings and attitudes: saying that kindness is good is a way of expressing one’s approval of kindness. Similarly, [[R.M. Hare]] argues that evaluations (ethical judgments) are prescriptions (commands): saying that kindness is good is a way of telling people that they should be kind. Evaluative judgments are then understood as emotive or prescriptive, and are contrasted with descriptive judgments. Descriptive judgments are appraisable as true or false; evaluative judgments are not.
  
== Meta-ethics ==
+
==Normative ethics==
{{main|Meta-ethics}}
+
===Theory of right action===
 +
[[Normative ethics]] is concerned with moral norms in the sense of standards with which moral agents ought to comply. “Thou shall not murder” is an example of a moral norm. Normative ethics aims to identify principles of right action that may be used to guide human beings in their lives. These principles will (normally) be of the type that can be used to decide whether particular courses of action, or particular types of action, are right or wrong. This aspect of normative ethics, the theory of right action, is an investigation and an attempt to answer the question: “what ought I to do?” or “what is the right thing to do?” It tries to answer this question by identifying a set of principles that may be used to determine right actions, or alternatively, as with [[Aristotle]], showing that no such principles are available and that rightness must be perceived in a situational context. Besides the already mentioned terms, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, and ‘ought’, other important normative concepts relating to action include ‘obligatory’, ‘forbidden’, ‘permissible’, and ‘required’.
  
'''Meta-ethics''' is the investigation of the nature of ethical statements. It involves such questions as: Are ethical claims truth-apt, i.e., capable of being true or false, or are they, for example, expressions of emotion (see [[cognitivism (ethics)|cognitivism]] and [[non-cognitivism]])? If they are truth-apt, are they ever true? If they are ever true, what is the nature of the facts that they express? And are they ever true absolutely (see [[moral absolutism]]), or always only relative to some individual, society, or culture? (See [[moral relativism]], [[cultural relativism]].)
+
Four normative theories currently dominate the philosophical terrain. These are [[utilitarianism]], [[Kantianism]], [[Intuitionism]], and [[virtue ethics]]. (See also the articles on [[teleological ethics]]; [[deontological ethics]]; [[natural law ethics]].) According to classical utilitarianism, an action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of overall happiness. Recent versions of utilitarianism tend to replace happiness with more economically respectable notions such as desire or preference satisfaction. Contemporary discussions also recognize a distinction between utilitarianism and [[consequentialism]]. Consequentialism is a general theory that makes rightness (or justifiability) depend on the value of consequences brought about, but is independent of any account as to what consequences these may be. By contrast, utilitarianism supports a particular subjectivist account of value—the consequences to be maximized—that emphasizes human welfare.
  
Meta-ethics studies the nature of ethical sentences and attitudes. This includes such questions as what "good" and "right" ''mean'', whether and how we ''know'' what is right and good, whether moral values are objective, and how ethical attitudes motivate us. Often this is derived from some list of moral absolutes, e.g. a religious [[moral code]], whether explicit or not. Some would view [[aesthetics]] as itself a form of meta-ethics.  Some philosophers, such as [[Kierkegaard]] viewed meta-ethics as a pursuit that could only be understood in terms of the religious.  His Christian derived ethics is seen most clearly in the concept of a 'teleological suspension of the ethical' - a moment when ethical reality is superseded by religious reality, such as Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac on Mt. Moriah and its prefiguration of God the father's sacrifice of Christ.
+
Kantian ethics derives from the work of the [[Immanuel Kant]]. The fundamental principle of Kant’s ethics is the [[Categorical Imperative]], which is said to underlie all commonly recognized moral principles. The Categorical Imperative is a principle of consistency, demanding that we act on reasons which all rational agents could endorse, i.e., universally acceptable reasons. Kantian ethics emphasizes [[respect]] for persons, and holds that there are (in contrast with utilitarianism) certain actions that should never be done. Kant’s ethics has also had an important influence on political philosophers such as [[John Rawls]].  
  
Meta-ethics also investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Meta-ethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.
+
[[Intuitionism]] is another name for [[pluralism]]. The best-known form of intuitionism is probably that presented by [[W.D. Ross]] in ''The Right and the Good.'' Ross argues that we are able to intuit a number of irreducible prima facie duties (to keep our promises, to refrain from harming the innocent, etc.), none of which take precedence over any other. In this respect, Ross accepts a form of moral pluralism, since he does not think that right action can be reduced to a single criterion. Here he sets himself up against Utilitarianism and Kantianism, which are both versions of monism because they recognize a single basic moral principle. Ross thinks that the right action (one’s duty proper) in a given situation is determined by a careful weighing of various moral principles that apply in the context.
  
== Normative ethics ==
+
[[Virtue ethics]], following [[Aristotle]], downplays or even denies the existence of universal rules to which actions must conform. According to virtue ethics, morality is not fundamentally about following rules, but rather about cultivating virtuous dispositions of character. A disposition is a tendency to have certain responses in particular situations: responses such as emotions, perceptions, and actions. The virtuous person is someone who acts rightly in response to requirements that are unique to the situation. He or she is someone who is able to perceive what the situation requires and act accordingly. People who have the virtue of courage, for example, are those with the disposition to ‘stand fast’ under trial, where this includes a complex of attitudes and emotions, behavior, and perceptions.
{{main|Normative ethics}}
 
  
'''Normative ethics''' bridges the gap between meta-ethics and applied ethics. It is the attempt to arrive at practical moral standards that tell us right from wrong, and how to live moral lives. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.
+
===Theory of value===
 +
The two central concepts of normative ethics are the ‘right’ and the ‘good’. The concept of the ‘right’, discussed in the previous section, is the concept of duty, of actions we ought to perform, and which it would be wrong not to perform. The concept of the good, the target of the [[theory of value]], or [[axiology]] (from the Greek ''axios'' = worth; ''logos'' =science), aims to explain what sort of property goodness is, and to determine what things are good. Goodness is not equivalent to moral goodness. Works of art have value, but not moral value. Or again, relaxation may be good for a person, but there is nothing morally good about taking a walk. The theory of value is concerned with the nature of goodness in general, of which moral goodness is one species.
  
*One branch of normative ethics is [[theory of conduct]]; this is the study of right and wrong, of obligation and permissions, of duty, of what is above and beyond the call of duty, and of what is so wrong as to be evil. Theories of conduct propose standards of [[morality]], or [[moral code]]s or rules. For example, the following would be the sort of rules that a theory of conduct would discuss (though different theories will differ on the merit of each of these particular rules): "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; "The right action is the action which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number"; "Stealing is wrong".  Theories of moral conduct can be distinguished from [[etiquette]] by their concern with finding guidelines for action that are not dependent entirely on social convention. For example, it may not be a breach of etiquette to fail to give money to help those in poverty, but it could still be a failure to act morally.
+
What is the relationship between the theory of right action and the theory of value? The answer depends on the normative theory concerned. As indicated above, classical utilitarianism aims to account for right action in terms of the promotion of human good. In this respect, [[utilitarianism]] requires an account of human good in order to specify just what sort of good consequences must be maximized. By contrast, [[deontology|deontological]] theories, of which Kant’s ethics is the best-known example, do not explain right action in terms of the promotion of good. Many deontologists would argue that it is wrong to kill an innocent person no matter what the value of the consequences might be. So whereas the utilitarian defines right action in terms of the promotion of goodness, the deontologist holds that, for example, respecting people’s rights is more important that increasing the amount of value in the world. This is sometimes expressed by saying that deontology makes the right prior to the good.
  
*Another branch of normative ethics is [[theory of value]]; this looks at what things are deemed to be valuable. Suppose we have decided that certain things are intrinsically good, or are more valuable than other things that are also intrinsically good. Given this, the next big question is what would this imply about how we should live our lives? The theory of value also asks: What sorts of things are good? What sorts of situations are good? Is pleasure always good? Is it good for people to be equally well-off? Is it intrinsically good for beautiful objects to exist? Or: What does "good" mean?  It may literally define "good" and "bad" for a community or society. [Criticism: Theory of value is not a part of normative ethics, though normative ethics presupposes some theory of value. For example, there are aesthetic values which may be amoral, i.e., neutral in regard to conduct.]
+
[[Theories of value]] are often classified in terms of the subjective-objective distinction. Subjectivist theories hold that value is dependent on producing pleasure, being desired, or preferred, or more abstractly, on what would be preferred in certain ideal conditions. Utilitarianism theories of value, such as hedonism and its descendents, desire and preference satisfaction theories, are paradigmatic subjectivist accounts of value. By contrast, objectivist theories of value say that certain things and states are valuable independently whether they produce pleasure, are desired, or preferred. Perfectionism is an objectivist theory of value according to which goodness depends on the actualization or perfection of human nature. According to [[Aristotle]], for instance, fulfilling the function (ergon) of a human being involves the exercise and perfection of its rational capacities. It follows that the good life for man involves the attainment of [[virtue]] or excellence (arête) in reason.
  
== Applied ethics ==
+
==Applied ethics==
{{main|applied ethics}}
+
Meta-ethics and normative ethics are abstract areas of inquiry. The third main branch of philosophical ethics—[[applied ethics]]—is very practical, aiming to apply the results of normative ethics to everyday life. Many great ethical thinkers have been concerned with such questions. For example, [[Aristotle]] claimed that studying ethics is beneficial only insofar as it makes a practical difference to how one lives; [[Thomas Aquinas]]’ masterwork, ''Summa Theologiae'' offers a great deal of practical counsel on marriage and family (amongst other things); and Kant and Hume wrote directly on whether [[suicide]] is ever morally justifiable. Today, after a period of relative neglect in the first half of the twentieth century, interest in applied ethics enjoys tremendous growth. Practical issues such as [[abortion]], [[euthanasia]], [[criminal punishment]], and the [[treatment of animals]], continue to be the subject of vigorous debate.
  
One form of '''applied ethics''' applies normative ethical theories to specific controversial issues. In these cases, the ethicist adopts a defensible theoretical framework, and then derives normative advice by applying the theory.
+
Recent philosophical discussion of the treatment of animals provides a clear example of the practical value of applied ethics. In the Western world (and in contrast with certain Eastern traditions) animals have long been excluded from the domain of moral concern. They have been bred up and killed for food and clothing, captured and dissected in the name of science, and sometimes hunted for pure pleasure. This treatment has been justified in several ways. Within the Jewish and Christian religious context, for example, it is taught that God created animals for human use, and so we are entitled to do to them as we please.  
  
However, many persons and situations, notably traditional religionists and lawyers, find this approach either against accepted religious doctrine or impractical because it does not conform to existing laws and court decisions. [[casuistry|Casuistry]] is a completely different form of applied ethics that is widely used in these cases and by these groups. Casuists compare moral dilemmas to well established cases (sometimes called [[paradigm]]s).  The well-established methods for coping with the well-established cases are then adapted to the case at hand.
+
This long established tradition was challenged in the eighteenth century by one of the founders of [[utilitarianism]], [[Jeremy Bentham]]. According to utilitarianism, morality is fundamentally a matter of promoting happiness (pleasure) and preventing suffering (pain). This implies that moral concern is not limited to creatures with reason—as Aristotle had thought—but has application to all sentient creatures. Bentham writes:
  
The special virtue of casuistry over applied moral theory is that groups and individuals often disagree about theories, but may nonetheless have remarkably similar paradigms. Thus, they may be able to achieve substantial social agreement about actions, even though their theories are incompatible. This may be why casuistry is the foundation of many legal systems.
+
<blockquote>The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire the rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the ''os sacrum'' are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate…. The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they ‘’suffer’’? (1789, 311)</blockquote>
Causistry is essentially based on applying paradigms to individual cases on their own merits.
 
  
The ethical problems attacked by applied ethicists (of whatever sort) often bear directly on public policy. For example, the following would be questions of applied ethics: "Is getting an abortion ever moral?"; "Is euthanasia ever moral?"; "What are the ethical underpinnings of [[affirmative action]] policies?"; "What are [[human rights]], and how do we determine them?"; "Do animals have rights?" 
+
Insofar as one agrees that sentience (rather than rationality) is the criterion of moral significance, and agrees that it is wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily, then many accepted practices of (e.g.) meat production are clearly immoral. This easy argument shows how philosophical reasoning can generate important ethical conclusions. Similarly controversial results have been obtained in other areas, and by the application of different ethical theories such [[Kantianism]] and [[Virtue Ethics]]. Indeed, the development of [[applied ethics]] has been so great in the last three decades that a systematic overview is impossible. The reader is referred to the article entries on the important topics of applied ethics. These include but are not limited to [[medical ethics]], [[abortion]], [[euthanasia]], [[bioethics]], [[suicide]]; [[reproduction ethics]]; [[environmental ethics]]], [[animal rights]], [[vegetarianism]], [[ecological philosophy]]; [[professional ethics]], [[business ethics]]; [[pornography]], [[sexuality]], [[paternalism]]; [[just war theory]], [[punishment]], [[capital punishment]]; [[famine]] and [[poverty]].
  
Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance [[law]], [[politics]], and practice of [[arbitration]] &ndash; in fact no common assumptions of all participants &ndash; so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing.
+
==Determinism and Free Will==
 +
Ethics is not independent of other branches of inquiry. One important point of contact between ethics and [[metaphysics]] is the problem of [[free will]]. It is often argued that ethics presupposes that human agents have free will, for if it is true to say that someone should not have acted in a way that violated a moral obligation, then they must have been able to do something else instead. So it seems that ethics, especially in the sense of moral obligation, presupposes that human beings have free will.  
  
But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example: Is [[lying]] always wrong? If not, when is it permissible? The ability to make these ethical judgments is prior to any etiquette.
+
However, many philosophers have worried that free will is an illusion because of universal [[determinism]]. Determinism is the thesis that all events in the natural world proceed according to (roughly deterministic) laws specified by the laws of [[physics]]. Is it possible if determinism is true, that human beings to do anything other than they do in fact do? For example, how can we make sense of [[Judas Iscariot]] freely betraying [[Jesus Christ]] if Judas’ actions are part of the natural causal order and governed by laws over which he has no control? Some philosophers—[[incompatibilists]]—think that free will and [[moral responsibility]] presuppose the falsity of determinism, while others—compatibilists—have tried to show that free will and determinism can coexist.
  
There are several sub-branches of applied ethics examining the ethical problems of different professions, such as business ethics, medical ethics, engineering ethics and legal ethics, while [[technology assessment]] and [[environmental assessment]] study the effects and implications of new technologies or projects on nature and society.
+
==References==
 +
===Introductory texts===
 +
*Rachels, J. ''The Elements of Moral Philosophy.'' Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1986. ISBN 0877224056
 +
*Singer, P. ''Applied Ethics.'' New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0198750676
 +
*Singer, P. ''A Companion to Ethics.'' Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Reference, 1991. ISBN 0631162119
  
Each branch to characterize common issues and problems that arise in the [[ethical code]]s of the professions, and define their common responsibility to the public, e.g. to preserve its natural capital, or to obey some social expectations of honest dealings and disclosure.
+
===Classic texts===
 +
*Aristotle; Martin Oswald, ed. ''The Nichomachean Ethics.'' Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1999. ISBN 978-0872204645
 +
*Aquinas, Thomas, and T. Gilby, ed. ''Summa theologiae.''  London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1963-1964, 60 vols.
 +
*Bentham, Jeremy. ''An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.'' British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2011. ISBN 978-1241475611
 +
*Kant, Immanuel, and Mary Gregor (ed.). ''The Moral Law: Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.'' New York, NY:Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0521626958
 +
*Mill, John Stuart. ''Utilitarianism.'' ''IndyPublish.com'' 2005. ISBN 978-1421928760
  
* [[Abortion, legal and moral issues]]
+
===Applied Ethics===
* [[Animal rights]]
+
*Clark, S.R.L. ''The Moral Status of Animals.'' Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. ISBN 0198245785
* [[Bioethics]]
+
*Glover, J. ''Causing Death and Saving Lives.'' New York, NY: Penguin, 1977. ISBN 0140220038
* [[Business ethics]]
+
*Glover, J. et al. ''Fertility and the Family: The Glover Report on Reproductive Technologies to the European Commission.'' London: Fourth Estate Ltd.
* [[Criminal justice]]
+
*Hursthouse, R. ''Beginning Lives.'' New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1987. ISBN 0631153276
* [[Environmental ethics]]
+
*O’Neill, O. ''Faces of Hunger: an essay on poverty, justice, and development.'' Boston, MA: G. Allen & Unwin, 1986. ISBN 0041700368 
* [[Feminism]]
+
*Passmore, J. ''Man’s Responsibility for Nature: ecological problems and Western traditions.'' New York, NY: Scribner, 1974. ISBN 0684138158
* [[Gay rights]]
+
*Rachels, J. (ed.) ''Moral Problems: A Collection of Philosophical Essays.'' New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1979. ISBN 978-0063871007
* [[Human rights]]
+
*Rachels, J. ''The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality.'' New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 019217746X
* [[Journalism ethics]]
+
*Singer, P. ''Animal Liberation.'' New York, NY: New York Review of Books: Distributed by Random House, 1990. ISBN 0940322005
* [[Just war theory]]
+
*Singer, P. ''Practical Ethics.'' New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ISBN 0521229200
* [[Medical ethics]]
+
*Walzer, M. ''Just and Unjust Wars.'' New York, NY: Basic Books, 1977. ISBN 0465037046
* [[Technological ethics]]
+
*Warnock, M. ''A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Fertilisation and Embryology.'' New York, NY: Blackwell, 1985. ISBN 0631142576
* [[Utilitarian ethics]]
 
* [[Utilitarian bioethics]]
 
  
Ethics has been applied to [[economics]], [[politics]] and [[political science]], leading to several distinct and unrelated fields of applied ethics, including [[Business ethics]] and [[Marxism]].
+
== External links ==
 
+
All links retrieved August 15, 2017.
Ethics has been applied to family structure, sexuality, and how society views the roles of individuals; leading to several distinct and unrelated fields of applied ethics, including [[feminism]].
 
 
 
Moral Ethics has been applied to war, leading to the fields of [[pacifism]] and [[nonviolence]].
 
 
 
Ethics has been applied to analyze human use of Earth's limited resources. This has led to the study of [[environmental ethics]] and [[social ecology]]. A growing trend has been to combine the study of both ecology and economics to help provide a basis for sustainable decisions on environmental use. This has led to the theories of [[ecological footprint]] and [[bioregional autonomy]]. Political and social movements based on such ideas include [[eco-feminism]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[deep ecology]], the [[green movement]], and ideas about their possible integration into [[Gaia philosophy]].
 
 
 
Ethics has been applied to [[criminology]] leading to the field of [[criminal justice]].
 
 
 
There are several sub-branches of applied ethics examining the ethical problems of different professions, such as [[business ethics]], [[medical ethics]], [[engineering ethics]] and [[legal ethics]], while [[technology assessment]] and [[environmental assessment]] study the effects and implications of new technologies or projects on nature and society.
 
Each branch characterizes common issues and problems that may arise, and define their common responsibility to the public, e.g. to preserve its natural capital, or to obey some social expectations of honest dealings and disclosure.
 
 
 
=== Ethics in religion ===
 
{{main articles|[[Ethics in religion]] and [[Ethics in the Bible]]}}
 
 
 
=== Ethics in health care ===
 
{{main articles|[[bioethics]] and [[medical ethics]]}}
 
 
 
One of the major areas where ethicists practice is in the field of [[health care]]. This includes [[medicine]], [[nursing]], [[pharmacy]], [[genetics]], and allied health professions. Example issues are [[euthanasia]], [[abortion]], medical experiments, [[vaccine trials]], [[stem cell]] research, [[informed consent]], truth telling, patient rights and autonomy, rationing of health care (such as [[triage]]).
 
 
 
==== Ethics in psychology ====
 
By the [[1960s]] there was increased interest in [[moral reasoning]].  [[Psychology|Psychologists]] such as [[Lawrence Kohlberg]] developed theories which are based on the idea that moral behavior is made possible by moral reasoning. Their theories subdivided moral reasoning into so-called stages, which refer to the set of principles or methods that a person uses for ethical judgment. The first and most famous theory of this type was [[Kohlberg's stages of moral development|Kohlberg's theory of moral development]].
 
  
[[Carol Gilligan]], a student of Kohlberg's, argued that women tend to develop through a different set of stages from men. Her studies inspired work on a so-called ethic of care, which particularly defines itself against Rawlsian-type justice- and contract-based approaches.
+
* [http://www.ditext.com/broad/ftet/ftet.html C. D. Broad, ''Five Types of Ethical Theory'' (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1930).]  
 
+
* [http://www.ditext.com/ross/right.html W. D. Ross, ''The Right and the Good'' (1930)].  
Another group of influential psychological theories with ethical implications is the [[humanistic psychology]] movement. One of the most famous humanistic theories is [[Abraham Maslow|Abraham Maslow's]] [[Maslow's hierarchy of needs|hierarchy of needs]]. Maslow argued that the highest human need is [[self-actualization]], which can be described as fulfilling one's potential, and trying to fix what is wrong in the world. [[Carl Rogers|Carl Rogers's]] work was based on similar assumptions. He thought that in order to be a 'fully functioning person', one has to be creative and accept one's own feelings and needs. He also emphasized the value of self-actualization. A similar theory was proposed by [[Fritz Perls]], who assumed that taking responsibility of one's own life is an important value. 
 
 
 
[[R.D. Laing]] developed a broad range of thought on interpersonal psychology.  This deals with interactions between people, which he considered important, for an ethical action always occurs between one person and another.  In books such as The Politics of Experience, he dealt with issues concerning how we should relate to persons labeled by the psychiatric establishment as "schizophrenic".  He came to be seen as a champion for the rights of those considered mentally ill.  He spoke out against (and wrote about) practices of psychiatrists which he considered inhumane or barbaric, such as electric shock treatment.  Like Wittgenstein, he was frequently concerned with clarifying the use of language in the field — so, for example, he suggested that the effects of psychiatric drugs (some of which are very deleterious, such as tardive diskensia) be called just that: "effects", and not be referred to by the preferred euphemisms of the drug companies, who prefer to call them "side effects".  Laing also did work in establishing true asylums as places of refuge for those who feel disturbed and want a safe place to go through whatever it is they want to explore in themselves, and with others.
 
 
 
A third group of psychological theories that have implications for the nature of ethics are based on [[evolutionary psychology]]. These theories are based on the assumption that the behavior that ethics prescribe can sometimes be seen as an evolutionary adaptation. For instance, altruism towards members of one's own family promotes one's [[inclusive fitness]].
 
 
 
Some concerns have developed recently about ethics in the psychology
 
field itself.  In particular there are concerns about the psychotherapy
 
field and how several have reacted to criticism of their science.
 
There has been concern about the behavior of these psychologists
 
on Usenet (in newsgroups).  Some of these concerns are voiced through
 
the domain http://cyberper.cnc.net/a_spp_faq.htm
 
 
 
=== Ethics in politics ===
 
Often, such efforts take legal or political form before they are understood as works of [[normative ethics]].  The [[UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights]] of [[1948]] and the [[Global Green Charter]] of [[2001]] are two such examples. However, as [[war]] and the development of [[weapon technology]] continues, it seems clear that no non-violent means of dispute resolution is accepted by all.
 
 
 
The need to redefine and align politics away from ideology and towards dispute resolution was a motive for [[Bernard Crick]]'s list of [[political virtues]].
 
 
 
== Ethics by cases ==
 
A common approach in applied ethics is to deal with individual issues on a case-by-case basis.
 
 
 
''[[Casuistry]]'' is the application of [[case-based reasoning]] to applied ethics.  Almost all American states have tried to discourage dishonest practices by their public employees and elected officials by establishing an [[Ethics Commission]] for their state.
 
 
 
[[Bernard Crick]] in [[1982]] offered a socially-centered view, that [[politics]] was the only applied ethics, that it was how cases were really resolved, and that "[[political virtues]]" were in fact necessary in all matters where human morality and interests were destined to clash.  This and other views of modern universals is dealt with below under ''Global Ethics''.
 
 
 
The lines of distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of [[abortion]] is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"
 
 
 
Another concept which blurs ethics is [[moral luck]]. A drunk driver may safely reach home without injuring anyone, or he might accidentally kill a child who runs out into the street while he is driving home. How bad the action of driving while drunk is in that case depends on chance.
 
 
 
== Descriptive ethics ==
 
Some philosophers rely on [[descriptive ethics]] and choices made and unchallenged by a [[society]] or [[culture]] to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This leads to [[situational ethics]] and [[situated ethics]].  These philosophers often view [[aesthetics]] and [[etiquette]] and [[arbitration]] as more fundamental, percolating 'bottom up' to imply, rather than explicitly state, theories of value or of conduct.  In these views ethics is not derived from a top-down a priori "philosophy" (many would reject that word) but rather is strictly derived from observations of actual choices made in practice:
 
 
 
* [[Ethical code]]s applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics &ndash; and a personal [[moral core]] developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.
 
* Informal theories of [[etiquette]] which tend to be less rigorous and more situational.  Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, i.e. where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong?  One notable advocate of this view is [[Judith Martin]] ("Miss Manners").  In this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social decisions.
 
* Practices in [[arbitration]] and [[law]], e.g. the claim by [[Rushworth Kidder]] that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right", i.e. putting priorities on two things that are both right, but which must be traded off carefully in each situation.  This view many consider to have potential to reform ethics as a practice, but it is not as widely held as the 'aesthetic' or 'common sense' views listed above.
 
* Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who [[vote]], [[buy]] and decide what is worth fighting about.  This is a major concern of [[sociology]], [[political science]] and [[economics]].
 
 
 
Those who embrace such descriptive approaches tend to reject overtly normative ones.  There are exceptions, such as the movement to more [[moral purchasing]].
 
 
 
== The analytic view ==
 
The descriptive view of ethics is modern and in many ways more empirical.  But because the above are dealt with more deeply in their own articles, the rest of this article will focus on the formal academic categories, which are derived from classical [[Greek philosophy]], especially [[Aristotle]].
 
 
 
First, we need to define an ''ethical sentence'', also called a ''normative statement''.  An ethical sentence is one that is used to make either a positive or a negative (moral) evaluation of something. Ethical sentences use words such as "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "moral," "immoral," and so on. Here are some examples:
 
 
 
* "Sally is a good person."
 
* "People should not steal."
 
* "The [[O. J. Simpson|Simpson]] verdict was unjust."
 
* "Honesty is a virtue."
 
* "One ought not to break the law."
 
 
 
In contrast, a ''non''-ethical sentence would be a sentence that does ''not'' serve to (morally) evaluate something. Examples would include:
 
 
 
* "Someone took the stereo out of my car."
 
* "Simpson was acquitted at his trial."
 
* "Many people are dishonest."
 
* "I dislike it when people break the law."
 
 
 
==See also==
 
* [[Moral absolutism]]
 
** [[Consequentialism]]
 
*** [[Utilitarianism]]
 
** [[Deontology]]
 
*** [[Categorical imperative]]
 
** [[Divine command theory|Divine command ethics]]
 
** [[Universal prescriptivism]]
 
** [[Virtue ethics]]
 
* Prima Facie ethics (See [[W. D. Ross]])
 
* [[Ethical relativism]]
 
** [[Situational ethics]]
 
** [[Ethical subjectivism]]
 
* [[Nihilism#Nihilism in ethics and morality | Ethical nihilism]]
 
* [[Ethical skepticism]]
 
* [[Humanism|Liberal humanist ethics]]
 
** [[Secular humanism|(Secular) Humanist ethics]]
 
*** [[International Humanist and Ethical Union]]
 
** [[Religious humanism|Religious humanist ethics]]
 
----
 
* [[Altruism (ethical doctrine)]]
 
* [[Altruism in animals]]
 
* [[Ethical egoism]]
 
** [[Objectivist ethics]]
 
* [[Social contract]]s.
 
* [[Ethics and evolutionary psychology|Evolutionary ethics]]
 
----
 
* [[Bioethics]]
 
* [[Goodness and value theory]]
 
* [[Human rights]]
 
* [[Is-ought problem]]
 
* [[Kohlberg's stages of moral development]]
 
* [[List of ethicists]]
 
* [[List of ethics topics]]
 
* [[Meta-ethics]]
 
* [[Morality]]
 
* [[Naturalistic fallacy]]
 
* [[Perfection]] (Moral perfection)
 
* [[Ethic of reciprocity|The Golden Rule]]
 
* [[Virtue ethics]]
 
 
 
==References ==
 
* {{cite book
 
| last = Blackburn | first = S
 
| title = Dictionary of Philosophy
 
| location = Oxford
 
| publisher = Oxford University Press
 
| year = 1996
 
| id = ISBN 0192831348
 
}}
 
* {{cite book
 
| last = Cornman | first = James
 
| coauthors = ''et al''
 
| title = Philosophical Problems and Arguments - An Introduction
 
| edition = 4th ed.
 
| location = Indianapolis
 
| publisher = Hackett
 
| year = 1992
 
| id = ISBN 0872201244
 
}}
 
* {{cite book
 
| last = MacIntyre | first = A
 
| title = A Short History of Ethics
 
| publisher = Routledge
 
| year = 2002
 
| id = ISBN 0415287499
 
}}
 
* {{cite book
 
| author = Singer, P. (Ed.)
 
| title = A Companion To Ethics
 
| location = Massachusetts
 
| publisher = Blackwell
 
| year = 1993
 
| id = ISBN 0631187855
 
}}
 
 
 
== External links ==
 
* [http://ethics.acusd.edu/ Ethics Updates] mega-list of ethics resources maintained by Lawrence Hinman of the University of San Diego.
 
* [http://www.ditext.com/broad/ftet/ftet.html C. D. Broad, ''Five Types of Ethical Theory'' (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1930).]
 
* [http://www.ditext.com/ross/right.html W. D. Ross, ''The Right and the Good'' (1930)]
 
* [http://www.www.josephsoninstitute.org The Josephson Institute of Ethics] An organization aimed to improve the ethical quality of society by changing personal and organizational decision making and behavior.
 
* [http://www.galilean-library.org/int11.html An Introduction to Ethics] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
 
 
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/ Ancient Ethics]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/ Ancient Ethical Theory].
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/ Environmental Ethics]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/ Environmental Ethics].
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/ Feminist Ethics]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/ Feminist Ethics].
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ Natural Law Tradition in Ethics]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ Natural Law Tradition in Ethics].
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ Virtue Ethics]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ Virtue Ethics].
 
+
===General Philosophy Sources===
{{Philosophy navigation}}
+
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy].
 
+
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy].
[[Category:Ethics| ]]
+
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online].
[[Category:Social philosophy]]
+
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg].
[[Category:philosophy and religion]]
+
 +
[[category:Philosophy and religion]]
 +
[[Category:philosophy]]
  
 
{{Credit|46617573}}
 
{{Credit|46617573}}

Revision as of 15:15, 15 August 2017

Ethics (from the Greek ethos – custom) in the sense of systems of value and codes of conduct have always been part of human societies. In this sense, there are many distinct ethical traditions corresponding to the major cultural and religious divisions, such as Indian, Buddhist, Chinese, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic ethics. These are the ethical traditions that most people in the world look to for guidance about how to live.

In the Western intellectual tradition, philosophical ethics begins with the Greek Sophists of the fifth century B.C.E., who started to reflect on their ethical codes and values, and raised critical questions about morality, such as how it came to exist, and why one should follow its guidelines. Many of the same questions that preoccupied ancient ethical thinkers continue to be debated down to the present day.

Philosophical ethics (also called moral philosophy) is divided into three main areas of inquiry: (1) meta-ethics, (2) normative ethics, and (3) applied ethics. Meta-ethics is a study of the nature of ethics. A meta-ethical study is concerned, amongst other things, with the meaning and objectivity of moral judgments, and how human beings can come to know what is right. By contrast, normative ethics aims to provide specific guidelines for action by constructing theories about what makes actions right and wrong. Applied ethics involves the application of normative ethical theories to particular issues of practical concern such as abortion, euthanasia, criminal punishment, and the treatment of animals.

Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics is an inquiry into the nature of ethics. The prefix ‘meta’ suggests ‘aboutness’, as for example in the word ‘meta-psychology’, which is the study of psychology—what it is as a discipline—rather than a study in psychology. Simplifying somewhat, we can say that a meta-inquiry is a study of a study. Meta-ethics is then the study of ethics: it is concerned with determining the nature of judgments of moral right or wrong, good and bad. It is not concerned with finding out which actions or things are right and wrong, or which states are good and bad, but with understanding the meaning of concepts of right and wrong, good and bad. Meta-ethics does not ask whether lying is always wrong. Rather, it tries to ascertain whether there really is difference between right and wrong, or tries to clarify what it means to say that an action is right or wrong. A meta-ethical inquiry may ask: What, if anything, makes a judgment that lying is always wrong, true (or false)? One possible answer canvassed by meta-ethics is that moral rules are nothing other than social conventions of particular cultural groups. This entails that the judgment that lying is always wrong is simply an expression of the beliefs of a group of people, and it is their beliefs about the matter that make it true. This view is called moral relativism.

In the Anglophone world, twentieth century philosophers focused tremendously on meta-ethics rather than normative ethics. This meta-ethical agenda was due, firstly, to the enormous influence of G.E. Moore’s Principia Ethica, and secondly, to the emergence of logical positivism. The logical positivists embraced a theory of the linguistic meaning called the principle of verifiability. This principle says that a sentence is strictly meaningful only if it expresses something that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical observation. For example, the sentence “there are llamas in India” is meaningful because it could be verified or falsified by actually checking whether there are llamas in India. One important implication of the principle of verification is that moral judgments are strictly meaningless. The sentence “murder is wrong” cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical experience. We may find that people believe that murder is wrong, or disapprove of murder, but there is nothing in world corresponding to ‘wrongness’ that could be investigated by empirical science. Therefore, according to the logical positivists, all evaluative judgments are meaningless (see Fact and Value). This disturbing conclusion led many philosophers to set aside questions of normative ethics and to concentrate on more fundamental questions of the meaningfulness and objectivity of moral judgments.

Emotivism and prescriptivism are influential meta-ethical theories that may be understood as attempts to make sense of ethical language while adhering to the principle of verification. If all evaluative judgments are meaningless, then what are people doing when they say that kindness is good, or that cruelty is bad? Emotivists such as A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson, hold that evaluations express the speaker’s feelings and attitudes: saying that kindness is good is a way of expressing one’s approval of kindness. Similarly, R.M. Hare argues that evaluations (ethical judgments) are prescriptions (commands): saying that kindness is good is a way of telling people that they should be kind. Evaluative judgments are then understood as emotive or prescriptive, and are contrasted with descriptive judgments. Descriptive judgments are appraisable as true or false; evaluative judgments are not.

Normative ethics

Theory of right action

Normative ethics is concerned with moral norms in the sense of standards with which moral agents ought to comply. “Thou shall not murder” is an example of a moral norm. Normative ethics aims to identify principles of right action that may be used to guide human beings in their lives. These principles will (normally) be of the type that can be used to decide whether particular courses of action, or particular types of action, are right or wrong. This aspect of normative ethics, the theory of right action, is an investigation and an attempt to answer the question: “what ought I to do?” or “what is the right thing to do?” It tries to answer this question by identifying a set of principles that may be used to determine right actions, or alternatively, as with Aristotle, showing that no such principles are available and that rightness must be perceived in a situational context. Besides the already mentioned terms, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, and ‘ought’, other important normative concepts relating to action include ‘obligatory’, ‘forbidden’, ‘permissible’, and ‘required’.

Four normative theories currently dominate the philosophical terrain. These are utilitarianism, Kantianism, Intuitionism, and virtue ethics. (See also the articles on teleological ethics; deontological ethics; natural law ethics.) According to classical utilitarianism, an action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of overall happiness. Recent versions of utilitarianism tend to replace happiness with more economically respectable notions such as desire or preference satisfaction. Contemporary discussions also recognize a distinction between utilitarianism and consequentialism. Consequentialism is a general theory that makes rightness (or justifiability) depend on the value of consequences brought about, but is independent of any account as to what consequences these may be. By contrast, utilitarianism supports a particular subjectivist account of value—the consequences to be maximized—that emphasizes human welfare.

Kantian ethics derives from the work of the Immanuel Kant. The fundamental principle of Kant’s ethics is the Categorical Imperative, which is said to underlie all commonly recognized moral principles. The Categorical Imperative is a principle of consistency, demanding that we act on reasons which all rational agents could endorse, i.e., universally acceptable reasons. Kantian ethics emphasizes respect for persons, and holds that there are (in contrast with utilitarianism) certain actions that should never be done. Kant’s ethics has also had an important influence on political philosophers such as John Rawls.

Intuitionism is another name for pluralism. The best-known form of intuitionism is probably that presented by W.D. Ross in The Right and the Good. Ross argues that we are able to intuit a number of irreducible prima facie duties (to keep our promises, to refrain from harming the innocent, etc.), none of which take precedence over any other. In this respect, Ross accepts a form of moral pluralism, since he does not think that right action can be reduced to a single criterion. Here he sets himself up against Utilitarianism and Kantianism, which are both versions of monism because they recognize a single basic moral principle. Ross thinks that the right action (one’s duty proper) in a given situation is determined by a careful weighing of various moral principles that apply in the context.

Virtue ethics, following Aristotle, downplays or even denies the existence of universal rules to which actions must conform. According to virtue ethics, morality is not fundamentally about following rules, but rather about cultivating virtuous dispositions of character. A disposition is a tendency to have certain responses in particular situations: responses such as emotions, perceptions, and actions. The virtuous person is someone who acts rightly in response to requirements that are unique to the situation. He or she is someone who is able to perceive what the situation requires and act accordingly. People who have the virtue of courage, for example, are those with the disposition to ‘stand fast’ under trial, where this includes a complex of attitudes and emotions, behavior, and perceptions.

Theory of value

The two central concepts of normative ethics are the ‘right’ and the ‘good’. The concept of the ‘right’, discussed in the previous section, is the concept of duty, of actions we ought to perform, and which it would be wrong not to perform. The concept of the good, the target of the theory of value, or axiology (from the Greek axios = worth; logos =science), aims to explain what sort of property goodness is, and to determine what things are good. Goodness is not equivalent to moral goodness. Works of art have value, but not moral value. Or again, relaxation may be good for a person, but there is nothing morally good about taking a walk. The theory of value is concerned with the nature of goodness in general, of which moral goodness is one species.

What is the relationship between the theory of right action and the theory of value? The answer depends on the normative theory concerned. As indicated above, classical utilitarianism aims to account for right action in terms of the promotion of human good. In this respect, utilitarianism requires an account of human good in order to specify just what sort of good consequences must be maximized. By contrast, deontological theories, of which Kant’s ethics is the best-known example, do not explain right action in terms of the promotion of good. Many deontologists would argue that it is wrong to kill an innocent person no matter what the value of the consequences might be. So whereas the utilitarian defines right action in terms of the promotion of goodness, the deontologist holds that, for example, respecting people’s rights is more important that increasing the amount of value in the world. This is sometimes expressed by saying that deontology makes the right prior to the good.

Theories of value are often classified in terms of the subjective-objective distinction. Subjectivist theories hold that value is dependent on producing pleasure, being desired, or preferred, or more abstractly, on what would be preferred in certain ideal conditions. Utilitarianism theories of value, such as hedonism and its descendents, desire and preference satisfaction theories, are paradigmatic subjectivist accounts of value. By contrast, objectivist theories of value say that certain things and states are valuable independently whether they produce pleasure, are desired, or preferred. Perfectionism is an objectivist theory of value according to which goodness depends on the actualization or perfection of human nature. According to Aristotle, for instance, fulfilling the function (ergon) of a human being involves the exercise and perfection of its rational capacities. It follows that the good life for man involves the attainment of virtue or excellence (arête) in reason.

Applied ethics

Meta-ethics and normative ethics are abstract areas of inquiry. The third main branch of philosophical ethics—applied ethics—is very practical, aiming to apply the results of normative ethics to everyday life. Many great ethical thinkers have been concerned with such questions. For example, Aristotle claimed that studying ethics is beneficial only insofar as it makes a practical difference to how one lives; Thomas Aquinas’ masterwork, Summa Theologiae offers a great deal of practical counsel on marriage and family (amongst other things); and Kant and Hume wrote directly on whether suicide is ever morally justifiable. Today, after a period of relative neglect in the first half of the twentieth century, interest in applied ethics enjoys tremendous growth. Practical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, criminal punishment, and the treatment of animals, continue to be the subject of vigorous debate.

Recent philosophical discussion of the treatment of animals provides a clear example of the practical value of applied ethics. In the Western world (and in contrast with certain Eastern traditions) animals have long been excluded from the domain of moral concern. They have been bred up and killed for food and clothing, captured and dissected in the name of science, and sometimes hunted for pure pleasure. This treatment has been justified in several ways. Within the Jewish and Christian religious context, for example, it is taught that God created animals for human use, and so we are entitled to do to them as we please.

This long established tradition was challenged in the eighteenth century by one of the founders of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham. According to utilitarianism, morality is fundamentally a matter of promoting happiness (pleasure) and preventing suffering (pain). This implies that moral concern is not limited to creatures with reason—as Aristotle had thought—but has application to all sentient creatures. Bentham writes:

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire the rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate…. The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they ‘’suffer’’? (1789, 311)

Insofar as one agrees that sentience (rather than rationality) is the criterion of moral significance, and agrees that it is wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily, then many accepted practices of (e.g.) meat production are clearly immoral. This easy argument shows how philosophical reasoning can generate important ethical conclusions. Similarly controversial results have been obtained in other areas, and by the application of different ethical theories such Kantianism and Virtue Ethics. Indeed, the development of applied ethics has been so great in the last three decades that a systematic overview is impossible. The reader is referred to the article entries on the important topics of applied ethics. These include but are not limited to medical ethics, abortion, euthanasia, bioethics, suicide; reproduction ethics; environmental ethics], animal rights, vegetarianism, ecological philosophy; professional ethics, business ethics; pornography, sexuality, paternalism; just war theory, punishment, capital punishment; famine and poverty.

Determinism and Free Will

Ethics is not independent of other branches of inquiry. One important point of contact between ethics and metaphysics is the problem of free will. It is often argued that ethics presupposes that human agents have free will, for if it is true to say that someone should not have acted in a way that violated a moral obligation, then they must have been able to do something else instead. So it seems that ethics, especially in the sense of moral obligation, presupposes that human beings have free will.

However, many philosophers have worried that free will is an illusion because of universal determinism. Determinism is the thesis that all events in the natural world proceed according to (roughly deterministic) laws specified by the laws of physics. Is it possible if determinism is true, that human beings to do anything other than they do in fact do? For example, how can we make sense of Judas Iscariot freely betraying Jesus Christ if Judas’ actions are part of the natural causal order and governed by laws over which he has no control? Some philosophers—incompatibilists—think that free will and moral responsibility presuppose the falsity of determinism, while others—compatibilists—have tried to show that free will and determinism can coexist.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

Introductory texts

  • Rachels, J. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1986. ISBN 0877224056
  • Singer, P. Applied Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0198750676
  • Singer, P. A Companion to Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Reference, 1991. ISBN 0631162119

Classic texts

  • Aristotle; Martin Oswald, ed. The Nichomachean Ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1999. ISBN 978-0872204645
  • Aquinas, Thomas, and T. Gilby, ed. Summa theologiae. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1963-1964, 60 vols.
  • Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2011. ISBN 978-1241475611
  • Kant, Immanuel, and Mary Gregor (ed.). The Moral Law: Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0521626958
  • Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. IndyPublish.com 2005. ISBN 978-1421928760

Applied Ethics

  • Clark, S.R.L. The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. ISBN 0198245785
  • Glover, J. Causing Death and Saving Lives. New York, NY: Penguin, 1977. ISBN 0140220038
  • Glover, J. et al. Fertility and the Family: The Glover Report on Reproductive Technologies to the European Commission. London: Fourth Estate Ltd.
  • Hursthouse, R. Beginning Lives. New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1987. ISBN 0631153276
  • O’Neill, O. Faces of Hunger: an essay on poverty, justice, and development. Boston, MA: G. Allen & Unwin, 1986. ISBN 0041700368
  • Passmore, J. Man’s Responsibility for Nature: ecological problems and Western traditions. New York, NY: Scribner, 1974. ISBN 0684138158
  • Rachels, J. (ed.) Moral Problems: A Collection of Philosophical Essays. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1979. ISBN 978-0063871007
  • Rachels, J. The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 019217746X
  • Singer, P. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: New York Review of Books: Distributed by Random House, 1990. ISBN 0940322005
  • Singer, P. Practical Ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ISBN 0521229200
  • Walzer, M. Just and Unjust Wars. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1977. ISBN 0465037046
  • Warnock, M. A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Fertilisation and Embryology. New York, NY: Blackwell, 1985. ISBN 0631142576

External links

All links retrieved August 15, 2017.

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.