Table of Contents

Chapter I – Nature of Morality

Introduction
1.1 Define Morality
1.2 Theories of Morality
1.3 Determinism
1.4 Conceptual Issues in Determinism
1.5 The Compromise Between Free will and Determinism
1.6 What is Ethics
1.7 Ethics and Religion
1.8 Ethics and Law
Chapter II - Going Deeper into the Ghetto
Introduction
2.1 Brief Introduction of Three Typical Ghettos
2.2 Popular Ethics
2.2 Ethical Relativism
2.3 Egoism
2.5 Utilitarianism
2.6 Moral Dilemma
Chapter III - Expanding and Enlightening the Dilemma
Introduction
Aristotle and the Eudaimonia Ethics
Chapter IV - Bringing the yardstick into the Corporate
World Introduction
Corporate World from the Legal Perspective
Partnership
Corporation
Business Ethics
Why should Corporations be Good
Code of Ethics in Corporation
The Foundation of Business Ethics
Standards of Business Conducts and Ethics
The Philippine Seven Corporation Code of Conduct
Chapter V - The Workplace
Introduction
Civil Liabilities in the Workplace
Right Due Process of Law
Civil Liabilities in the Workplace
Management Prerogative
Wages
Chapter VI - The Firm and the Laborers
Introduction
Sexual Harassment
Employment Discrimination
Contractualization
Chapter VII - The Firm and Consumers
Introduction
Adulteration
Fraud
False Advertising
Insider Trading
Chapter VIII - Ethical Consumerism and Corporate
Social Responsibility
Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility
Basic Principles of CSR
Components of CSR
Environmental Sustainability

CHAPTER 1
Nature of Morality

Learning Outcomes:
 • To describe three major theoretical approaches in integrity and ethics
• To explain the various approaches to the study of morality
• To understand what morality is and how it differs from aesthetics, nonmoral behavior,
and manners
• To explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral experiences
and solve moral dilemma problems.

INTRODUCTION:
The fundamental question is, not “What things are moral, or morally good or right?” It is,
“What is morality anyway; what is this moral quality we say some things have?” When we say
that something has a metallic quality, we mean that there is such a “thing” out there in nature as
“metallic-ness”; it really exists and can be studied and has properties and laws. Similarly most
people think there is a realm of nature in which Moral things exist independently of you or me,
especially Moral qualities and Moral Laws, and they think that actions we carry out will in fact
be Moral, or Immoral, just as some objects will in fact be metallic or not, and if they are they
will obey the laws that metallic things follow. Whether or not an object is metallic is in no way
dependent on what anyone thinks or wishes or prefers. It either is or is not metallic. Either way
we are dealing with an objective fact. This is how most people think about morality; they think
that whether or not a particular action is Moral is a matter of Moral fact. Most people, in other
words, take an “Objectivist” view of morality, do not realize any other view exists, and indeed
would have great difficulty imagining that any other could exist.
The crucial and huge distinction here is between mere preferences, and Moral facts.
Most people would say that the Moral quality of cruelty is in no way a matter of human
preference; it is a matter of fact. Cruelty they would say is in fact Morally wrong, regardless of
what humans prefer. Even if all people on earth liked being cruel, and approved of it, it would
still be Morally wrong, because its Moral quality is a matter of fact that is in no way influenced
by what humans prefer. The Moral Law is thought of as being the same as physical law in this
regard -- whether a particular object is metallic or not is in no way dependent on whether people
would prefer it to be metallic.To most people all this seems indubitable; of course this is the
nature of Morality. How could Morality be otherwise? But to we Subjectivists, all the above is
totally and sadly confused and mistaken.
Firstly, the Objectivist can give no good reason for thinking that a Moral realm or that
Moral facts exist. Consider the enormity of the claim. If a person says that Gorillas exist, or
magnetic fields exist, or that there are metals, he is making huge claims about the nature of the
universe; he is saying that these things exist out there somewhere. You shouldn’t do that unless
you can give us pretty convincing reasons to believe that these things do exist. The best way is
to show them to us. The Objectivist cannot do this. How could be begin to show that “…cruelty
is in fact Morally right”? How could you go about trying to establish this? Consider Human
Rights. Most/all objectivists believe we have/possess a right to, e.g., freedom of speech, as if
this is something built into our nature just as we have ears. How could such a claim be proved?
The Subjectivist says it is obvious that rights are no more than behaviors etc. which we think it
is important/desirable to allow/protect etc?
Thus, the terms the Objectivist uses are meaningless, because they refer to nothing that exists.
More accurately they do mean something to the user; they refer to things that can be described
and understood in a sense, but which do not exist anywhere. They are like the terms “fairies”
or “evil spirits”; we know what these terms mean, refer to, but those things don’t exist.

1.1 Define Morality

The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably. However, it
is useful to make the following distinction:
Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the guide to
good or right conduct.
Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
What then is a moral theory?
A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or
concepts. A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong -- or why we ought to act
in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine right and wrong conduct. Also,
moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a reasoned way, and
so evaluate, specific moral issues.
Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp divide between moral
theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics). For instance, in order to critically
evaluate the moral issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt to evaluate what actions or
policies are right (or wrong) independent of what we take to determine right and wrong conduct.
You will see, as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without at least some moral theory
Another important distinction:
Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive?
In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday
'doings' and 'thinkings,' form a judgement about what is right and wrong, or are we prescribing
how people ought to make these judgements?
 Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people do is
left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality, want to
know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong.

Another important distinction:

Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive ?
In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday
'doings' and 'thinking,' form a judgement about what is right and wrong, or are we
prescribing how people ought to make these judgements?
Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people do is
left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality, want to
know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong.

1.2 Theories of Morality

(1) Moral Subjectivism

Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or
'feel') is right or wrong.
In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any
significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and
'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is 'right',
there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's
behaviour (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right).
This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is
legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to
disagree about moral issues.

(2) Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time.
Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize
the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the denial of
universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about what is right
and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral advancement
(which also seems not to be true).

(3) Ethical Egoism

Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act selfishly.
Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods
(e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act so as to maximize our self
interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving
some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others. However, egoists
will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the
altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of
helping others) or because they think there will be some personal advantage in doing so. That is,
they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish).
This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others at
the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist
has misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning
through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine
altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.

(4) Divine Command Theory

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that,
without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and wrong
behaviour. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and guide
people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection between
morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the
gods). This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an action
is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it, wrong if God commands we refrain from
doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be done.
Divine Command Theory is widely held to have several serious flaws. First, it
presupposes that God or gods exist. Second, even if we assume that God does exist, it
presupposes that we can know what God commands. But even if we accept theism, it looks like
even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised the relevant objection 2500 years ago. He
asked:
Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right?
 If the latter, then right and wrong are independent of the gods' commands -- Divine
Command Theory is false. If the former, then right and wrong are just a matter of the arbitrary
will of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, contradictory commands). Most
think that right and wrong are not arbitrary -- that is, some action is wrong, say, for a reason.
Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because of this reason,
not simply because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong, then, is not
God's commanding it, but the reason. Divine Command Theory is false again.

(5) Virtue Ethics

Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making the good person.
The most widely discussed is Aristotle's account. For Aristotle, the central concern is
"Ethica" = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character -- i.e.,
the moral virtues.
Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e.,
modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human beings truly
'happy'. True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being / fulfilment / self
actualization). Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective reasons for living in
accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and temperance). For Aristotle,
this comes from a particular account of human nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is the 'happiest'
(most fulfilling) life.
Three steps to the argument:
(1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.
(2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance with reason.
(3) Acting in accordance with reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional
virtues.
Aristotle thought that humans had a specific function. This function is to lead a life of
true flourishing as a human, which required abiding by the dictates of rationality and so acting in
accordance with the traditional virtues.

(6) Feminist Ethics

Right and wrong is to be found in womens' responses to the relationship of caring. Comes out of
the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male bias. Specifically,
feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral theories (they take
individualism to be a 'masculine' idea). Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we need to consider
the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So, morality, according to some feminist
moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love and sympathy, leading to
relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases towards those with whom we have close
social relationships.
(7) Utilitarianism
Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of
action.
Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
All action leads to some end. But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end. This is
pleasure or happiness. Also, that there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility',
alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the ideal
of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP implies that we
ought to act so as to maximize human welfare (though Bentham thought we should include all
sentient animals in his utilitarian calculations). We do this in a particular instance by choosing
the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.
Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not distinguish between
kinds of pleasures. However, Bentham's student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more sophisticated
version of Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower. The higher pleasures (those
obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits), carried greater weight than the lower pleasures
(those obtained through sensation). The upshot is that in determining what action to perform,
both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness count.
Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only with their own happiness.
Utilitarians are concerned with everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic. In general, morally right
actions are those that produce the best overall consequences / total amount of pleasure or absence
of pain.
Modern versions of Utilitarianism have dropped the idea of maximizing pleasure in
favour of maximizing the satisfaction of all relevant peoples' preferences and interests. Also,
some distinguish between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is pretty
mush as described above, where we make the utilitarian calculation based on the evaluation of
the consequences of a single isolated act. It is thought by some that this leads to a number of
significant problems -- for instance, that one person may be harmed if that leads to the greatest
good for everyone. To overcome these problems, some advocate Rule Utilitarianism -- the view
that we should adopt only those rules (for governing society) that produce the greatest good for
all.
 Other key points:
• For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.
• No person's preferences or interests (including your own, your relatives, friends,
neighbours, etc.) carry a greater weight than any other person's.
• Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian calculation before acting. So, in most
situations, following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best consequences.
• Democratic and economic principles reflect Utilitarianism.

Some things to ask about Utilitarianism:

• How can we determine accurately what the consequences of an action will be? • Do
people have rights that cannot be overridden by the goal of the best consequences for all?

(8) Kantian Theory

Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal duties.
Kantianism is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in terms of Law /
Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that acting morally
was quite simple. That is:
- you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).
- Reason guides you to this conclusion.
Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without qualification.
So, actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good Will. What
establishes Good Will? - only can be a law of "universal conformity" -- "I should never act
except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law". This is
called the Categorical Imperative = Principle of Universalizability (something like The Golden
Rule).Ý The basic idea is that we should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e., maxims)
only those that can be universally accepted. Consider someone wondering if they could break a
promise if keeping it became inconvenient. We might formulate the following maxim governing
promises:
I can break promises when keeping them becomes inconvenient.
Can this be universalized? Kant says no because making promises then becomes, in
essence, contradictory. The thinking is that a promise is, by definition, something you keep. The
above maxim would lead to a contradiction of will, i.e., "I'll make a promise (something I keep),
but I'll break it if I choose". The more general way to understand the Principle of
Universalizability is to think that we must always ask the following questions: What if everyone
did the action you are proposing? Or, what if I were in the other person's position? This leads to
the basic idea behind the Golden Rule.
Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as an end in themselves.
We can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society. What is wrong with the
slave society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to the slave
owner's ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot is that no person's
interests (or rights) can be overridden by another's, or the majority.
Many thinks that this way of formulating the Categorical Imperative shows that
Kantianism is clearly anti-Utilitarian.
Some things to ask about Kantianism:
• Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing that counts
morally? • Must we always ignore good consequences?
• Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end? (Can we do otherwise?)

(9) Rights-based Theories

We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by being
human.
Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist. The basic
idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide what the
right requires.
Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is one in which
the corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order to
sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will harm someone.
Some claim -- e.g., Libertarians -- that only negative rights count morally. For instance, the right
to life does not require that we give what is needed to sustain life, rather merely that we refrain
from taking any action that would take life. [Note: others argue that there is really no significant
distinction between positive and negative rights, arguing that a positive right can be understood
negatively, and vise versa. Also, that there is no morally significant difference between, for
example, letting someone die and killing them. Obviously, this is a hotly disputed issue.] Some
things to ask about Rights-based theories:
• Where do rights come from? From nature (we have them simply by being
human)? From principles of Justice? Or, from Utilitarian procedures?
 • How do we decide between competing rights?

(10) Contractarianism
The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would
agree upon in forming a social contract.
Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical
contract forming procedure. Here is John Rawls's example.
Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up with
universal principles of justice. The basic idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial developing a
social contract of universal principles -- but many find Rawls' novel method very appealing. The
idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of forming a society and
we want to know which principles of justice to ground the society. However, in this 'original
position' we do this without knowing which position we will occupy in the future society -- we
don't know if we will be rich or poor, male or female, old or young, etc. We then advocate those
principles that will be in our self-interest (though we don't know what 'self' that will be). This
forces us to be impartial, and if we are rational, to propose universal principles. The idea of the
thought experiment is not to think that we actually begin again, and construct a society from
scratch. Rather, we can use the thought experiment as a test of actual principles of justice. If a
principle is one that would not be adopted by people in the original position, behind the 'veil of
ignorance' (about who they will be), then it is unjust and should be rejected. [Rawls claims that
people in this original position will choose conservatively when developing principles
governing the distribution of benefits and burdens. This conservatism, Rawls claims, will lead
to the choosing two basic principles:
(1) that each member of the society should have as much liberty as possible without
infringing on the liberty of others; and
(2) the 'maximin' rule for decisions about economic justice -- namely, that they will
choose those rules that would maximize the minimum they would receive. In other words, make
the society in which the least well off are in the best possible position. Deviations from equality
of distribution of benefits and burdens is justified only if it advantages the least well off. Rawls
thought that some inequalities would be adopted because rewarding on the grounds of merit and
hard work, for example, would lead to a society in which there was a greater production of
social benefits, so the least well of would be better off than in a society of pure equality.

1.3 Determinism

Determinism is a far-reaching term affecting many areas of concern, that most widely and
radically states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this
view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing
new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe and of our world holds all events
to be simply the effects of other prior effects. This has radical and far-reaching implications for
morality, science, and religion. If general, radical, determinism is correct, then all events in the
future are unalterable, as are all events in the past. A major consequence of this is that human
freedom is simply an illusion.

The Problem with Determinism

The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if given a
specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural
law. The roots of the notion of determinism surely lie in a very common philosophical idea: the
idea that everything can, in principle, be explained, or that everything that is, has a sufficient
reason for being and being as it is, and not otherwise. In other words, the roots of determinism lie
in what Leibniz named the Principle of Sufficient Reason. But since precise physical theories
began to be formulated with apparently deterministic character, the notion has become separable
from these roots.
Philosophers of science are frequently interested in the determinism or indeterminism of
various theories, without necessarily starting from a view about Leibniz' Principle. Since the first
clear articulations of the concept, there has been a tendency among philosophers to believe in the
truth of some sort of determinist doctrine. There has also been a tendency, however, to confuse
determinism proper with two related notions: predictability and fate.

1.4 Conceptual Issues in Determinism

1.The World
Why should we start so globally, speaking of the world, with all its myriad events, as
deterministic?
One might have thought that a focus on individual events is more appropriate: an event
E is causally determined if and only if there exists a set of prior events {A, B, C …} that
constitute a (jointly) sufficient cause of E. Then if all—or even just most—events E that are our
human actions are causally determined, the problem that matters to us, namely the challenge to
free will, is in force. Nothing so global as states of the whole world need be invoked, nor even
a complete determinism that claims all events to be causally determined.
2. The way things are at a time t
The typical explication of determinism fastens on the state of the (whole) world at a particular
time (or instant), for a variety of reasons. Why take the state of the whole world, rather than
some (perhaps very large) region, as our starting point? One might, intuitively, think that it
would be enough to give the complete state of things on Earth, say, or perhaps in the whole solar
system, at t, to fix what happens thereafter (for a time at least). But in making vivid the “threat”
of determinism, we often want to fasten on the idea of the entire future of the world as being
determined. No matter what the “speed limit” on physical influences is, if we want the entire
future of the world to be determined, then we will have to fix the state of things over all of space,
so as not to miss out something that could later come in “from outside” to spoil things. 3.
Thereafter
For a wide class of physical theories (i.e., proposed sets of laws of nature), if they can be
viewed as deterministic at all, they can be viewed as bi-directionally deterministic. That is, a
specification of the state of the world at a time t, along with the laws, determines not only how
things go after t, but also how things go before t. Philosophers, while not exactly unaware of this
symmetry, tend to ignore it when thinking of the bearing of determinism on the free will issue.
The reason for this is that we tend to think of the past (and hence, states of the world in the past)
as done, over, fixed and beyond our control. Forward-looking determinism then entails that these
past states—beyond our control, perhaps occurring long before humans even existed—determine
everything we do in our lives. It then seems a mere curious fact that it is equally true that the
state of the world now determines everything that happened in the past.
4. Laws of nature
In the loose statement of determinism we are working from, metaphors such as “govern”
and “under the sway of” are used to indicate the strong force being attributed to the laws of
nature. Part of understanding determinism—and especially, whether and why it is metaphysically
important—is getting clear about the status of the presumed laws of nature.
In the physical sciences, the assumption that there are fundamental, exceptionless laws of
nature, and that they have some strong sort of modal force, usually goes unquestioned. Indeed,
talk of laws “governing” and so on is so commonplace that it takes an effort of will to see it as
metaphorical. We can characterize the usual assumptions about laws in this way: the laws of
nature are assumed to be pushy explainers. They make things happen in certain ways , and by
having this power, their existence lets us explain why things happen in certain ways. 5. Fixed
We can now put our—still vague—pieces together. Determinism requires a world that (a)
has a well-defined state or description, at any given time, and (b) laws of nature that are true at
all places and times. If we have all these, then if (a) and (b) together logically entail the state of
the world at all other times (or, at least, all times later than that given in (a)), the world is
deterministic. Logical entailment, in a sense broad enough to encompass mathematical
consequence, is the modality behind the determination in “determinism.”

1.5The Epistemology of Determinism

How could we ever decide whether our world is deterministic or not? Given that some
philosophers and some physicists have held firm views—with many prominent examples on each
side—one would think that it should be at least a clearly decidable question.
Unfortunately, even this much is not clear, and the epistemology of determinism turns out to
be a thorny and multi-faceted issue.
1. Laws again
Determinism to be true there have to be some laws of nature. Most philosophers and
scientists since the 17th century have indeed thought that there are. But in the face of more recent
skepticism, how can it be proven that there are? And if this hurdle can be overcome, don't we
have to know, with certainty, precisely what the laws of our world are, in order to tackle the
question of determinism's truth or falsity? The first hurdle can perhaps be overcome by a
combination of metaphysical argument and appeal to knowledge we already have of the physical
world. Philosophers are currently pursuing this issue actively, in large part due to the efforts of
the anti-laws minority.
2. Experience
Determinism could perhaps also receive direct support—confirmation in the sense of
probability-raising, not proof—from experience and experiment. For theories (i.e., potential laws
of nature) of the sort we are used to in physics, it is typically the case that if they are
deterministic, then to the extent that one can perfectly isolate a system and repeatedly impose
identical starting conditions, the subsequent behavior of the systems should also be identical.
And in broad terms, this is the case in many domains we are familiar with. The cases of
repeated, reliable behavior obviously require some serious ceteris paribus clauses, are never
perfectly identical, and always subject to catastrophic failure at some point. But we tend to think
that for the small deviations, probably there are explanations for them in terms of different
starting conditions or failed isolation, and for the catastrophic failures, definitely there are
explanations in terms of different conditions.
3. Determinism and Chaos
If the world were governed by strictly deterministic laws, might it still look as though
indeterminism reigns? This is one of the difficult questions that chaos theory raises for the
epistemology of determinism.
A deterministic chaotic system has, roughly speaking, two salient features: (i) the evolution
of the system over a long time period effectively mimics a random or stochastic process—it
lacks predictability or computability in some appropriate sense; (ii) two systems with nearly
identical initial states will have radically divergent future developments, within a finite (and
typically, short) timespan.
We will use “randomness” to denote the first feature, and “sensitive dependence on initial
conditions” (SDIC) for the latter. A simple and very important example of a chaotic system in
both randomness and SDIC terms is the Newtonian dynamics of a pool table with a convex
obstacle (or obstacles).
The usual idealizing assumptions are made: no friction, perfectly elastic collisions, no outside
influences. The ball's trajectory is determined by its initial position and direction of motion. If we
imagine a slightly different initial direction, the trajectory will at first be only slightly different.

And collisions with the straight walls will not tend to increase very rapidly the
difference between trajectories. But collisions with the convex object will have the effect of
amplifying the differences. After several collisions with the convex body or bodies, trajectories
that started out very close to one another will have become wildly different—SDIC.
4. Metaphysical arguments
Let us suppose that we shall never have the Final Theory of Everything before us—at least
in our lifetime—and that we also remain unclear (on physical/experimental grounds) as to
whether that Final Theory will be of a type that can or cannot be deterministic. Is there nothing
left that could sway our belief toward or against determinism? There is, of course:
metaphysical argument.
Metaphysical arguments on this issue are not currently very popular. But philosophical fashions
change at least twice a century, and grand systemic metaphysics of the Leibnizian sort might
one day come back into favor. As likely as not, for the foreseeable future metaphysical
argument may be just as good a basis on which to discuss determinism's prospects as any
arguments from mathematics or physics.

1.6The Compromise Between Free will and Determinism

The free will vs determinism debate revolves around the extent to which our behavior is the
result of forces over which we have no control or whether people are able to decide for
themselves whether to act or behave in a certain way. The determinist approach proposes that
all behavior has a cause and is thus predictable. Free will is an illusion, and our behavior is
governed by internal or external forces over which we have no control.

There are different levels of determinism:

❖ Hard Determinism
Hard determinism sees free will as an illusion and believes that every event and action has a
cause. Behaviorists are strong believers in hard determinism. Their most forthright and
articulate spokesman has been B. F. Skinner. Concepts like “free will” and “motivation” are
dismissed as illusions that disguise the real causes of human behavior. In Skinner’s scheme of
things the person who commits a crime has no real
choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental circumstances and a personal
history, which makes breaking the law natural and inevitable. For the law-abiding, an
accumulation of reinforcers has the opposite effect. Having been rewarded for following rules
in the past the individual does so in the future. There is no moral evaluation or even mental
calculation involved. All behavior is under stimulus control. ❖ Soft Determinism
Soft determinism represents a middle ground, people do have a choice, but that choice is
constrained by external or internal factors. For example, being poor doesn’t make you steal, but
it may make you more likely to take that route through desperation. Soft determinism suggests
that some behaviors are more constrained than others and that there is an element of free will in
all behavior.
However, a problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society's ideas of
responsibility and self control that form the basis of our moral and legal obligations. An
additional limitation concerns the facts that psychologists cannot predict a person's behavior
with 100% accuracy due to the complex interaction of variables which can influence behavior.

Freewill
Free will is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes
that we are free to choose our behavior, in other words we are self-determined. For example,
people can make a free choice as to whether to commit a crime or not (unless they are a child
or they are insane). This does not mean that behavior is random, but we are free from the
causal influences of past events. According to freewill a person is responsible for their own
actions. One of the main assumptions of the humanistic approach is that humans have free
will; not all behavior is determined. Personal agency is the humanistic term for the exercise
of free will. Personal agency refers to the choices we make in life, the paths we go down and
their consequences.

Critical Evaluation
Psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes freedom and
dignity, and devalues human behavior. By creating general laws of behavior, deterministic
psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their
own destiny. There are important implications for taking either side in this debate.
Deterministic explanations for behavior reduce individual responsibility. A person arrested for
a violent attack for example might plead that they were not responsible for their behavior – it
was due to their upbringing, a bang on the head they received earlier in life, recent relationship
stresses, or a psychiatric problem. In other words, their behavior was determined.

The deterministic approach also has important implications for psychology as a science.
Scientists are interested in discovering laws which can then be used to predict events. This is
very easy to see in physics, chemistry and biology. As a science, psychology attempts the same
thing – to develop laws, but this time to predict behavior. If we argue against determinism, we
are in effect rejecting the scientific approach to explaining behavior.
Mental illnesses appear to undermine the concept of freewill. For example, individuals
with OCD lose control of their thoughts and actions and people with depression lose control
over their emotions. Clearly, a pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem
appropriate when studying human behavior. Most psychologists use the concept of free will to
express the idea that behavior is not a passive reaction to forces, but that individuals actively
respond to internal and external forces.

1.7What is Ethics

Ethics are the code of conduct agreed and adopted by the people. It sets a standard of how a
person should live and interact with other people. The word "ethics" is derived from the Greek
"ethos" (meaning "custom" or "habit"). Ethics differs from morals and morality in that ethics
denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice.
Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of
moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung).
Ethics is two things.
First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans
ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific
virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to
refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include
those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include
standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the
right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by
consistent and well-founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned
above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So, it is necessary to
constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics
also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral
conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to
standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.
Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans
ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific
virtues. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact,
feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical
standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious
people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious
person.Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical
behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.Being
ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to
which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own
pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are
grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society,
most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can
deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a
good example of a morally corrupt society. Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever
society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society
accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a
survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. Further,
the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever
society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were
doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not,
in fact, exist.

What use is ethics?

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings
behave. Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue that if a person realizes that
it would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do it.
But human beings often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head
suggests a different course of action.
However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about moral issues:
❖ Ethics can provide a moral map
Most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia
for starters. ❖ Ethics can pinpoint a disagreement
Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find
that what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and that they
broadly agree on everything else.
❖ Ethics doesn't give right answers
People think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer - just a set of
principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear
choices.
❖ Ethics can give several answers
People genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they can't work out what that
right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right answer.

Ethics and People

❖ Ethics is about the 'other
At the heart of ethics is a concern about something or someone other than ourselves
and our own desires and self-interest. Ethics is concerned with other people's interests,
with the interests of society, with God's interests, with "ultimate goods", and so on.
❖ Ethics as source of group strength
One problem with ethics is the way it's often used as a weapon. If a group believes that a
particular activity is "wrong" it can then use morality as the justification for attacking those
who practice that activity. . When people do this, they often see those who they regard as
immoral as in some way less human or deserving of respect than themselves; sometimes
with tragic consequences. ❖ Good people as well as good actions
Ethics is not only about the morality of particular courses of action, but it's also about
the goodness of individuals and what it means to live a good life.
Virtue Ethicsis particularly concerned with the moral character of human beings.
❖ Searching for the source of right and wrong
At times in the past some people thought that ethical problems could be solved in one of
 two ways: ▪ by discovering what God wanted people to do
▪ by thinking rigorously about moral principles and problems
If a person did this properly, they would be led to the right conclusion.

Does ethics require God?

Some theists and atheists believe that if there is no God (and they usually think of the
Judeo Christian idea of God), then right and wrong, good and evil are entirely subjective, or
relative. The best case for believing that ethics requires some theistic grounding (objective
values derive from the goodness of God) is NOT one of the following:
▪ Only those who believe in God know what is right or wrong
▪ One needs to believe in God to be truly good.
▪ It is necessary to rely on the Bible or some other sacred text of revelation to know
good and evil.
▪ The Bible is the perfect guide to ethics.

1.8Ethics and Law

Definition of Law
The law is described as the set of rules and regulation, created by the government to
govern the whole society. The law is universally accepted, recognized and enforced. It is
created with the purpose of maintaining social order, peace, justice in the society and to provide
protection to the general public and safeguard their interest. It is made after considering ethical
principles and moral values. The law is made by the judicial system of the country. Every
person in the country is bound to follow the law. It clearly defines what a person must or must
not do. So, in the case of the breach of law may result in the punishment or penalty or
sometimes both.
Ethics and laws are found in virtually all spheres of society. They govern actions of
individuals around the world on a daily basis. They often work hand-in-hand to ensure that
citizens act in a certain manner, and likewise coordinate efforts to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the public. Though law often embodies ethical principals, law and ethics are not co-
extensive. Based on society’s ethics, laws are created and enforced by governments to mediate
our relationships with each other, and to protect its citizens. While laws carry with them a
punishment for violations, ethics do not. Essentially, laws enforce the behaviors we are expected
to follow, while ethics suggest what we ought to follow, and help us explore options to improve
our decision-making.
Ethical decision-making comes from within a person’s moral sense and desire to preserve
self respect. Laws are codifications of certain ethical values meant to help regulate society, and
also impact decision-making. It is not always a clear delineation though. Many acts that would
be widely condemned as unethical are not prohibited by law — lying or betraying the confidence
of a friend. In addition, punishments for breaking laws can be harsh and sometimes even break
ethical standards. Take the death penalty for instance. Ethics teaches that killing is wrong, yet
the law also punishes people who break the law with death.

Key Differences Between Law and Ethics

1. The law is defined as the systematic body of rules that governs the whole society and the
actions of its individual members. Ethics means the science of a standard human
conduct.
2. The law consists of a set of rules and regulations, whereas Ethics comprises of guidelines
and principles that inform people about how to live or how to behave in a particular
situation. 3. The law is created by the Government, which may be local, regional, national
or international. On the other hand, ethics are governed by an individual, legal or
professional norms, i.e. workplace ethics, environmental ethics and so on.
4. The law is expressed in the constitution in a written form. As opposed to ethics, it cannot
be found in writing form.
5. The breach of law may result in punishment or penalty, or both which is not in the case of
breach of ethics.
6. The objective of the law is to maintain social order and peace within the nation and
protection to all the citizens. Unlike, ethics that are the code of conduct that helps a
person to decide what is right or wrong and how to act.
7. The law creates a legal binding, but ethics has no such binding on the people.

The phrase unjust law can serve as a starting point for understanding that laws can be
immoral. We also have “shysters,” or crooked lawyers, who are considered unethical within their
own profession. Obviously, morality and the law are not necessarily one and the same thing
when two people can be lawyers, both having studied a great deal of the same material, and one
is moral, whereas the other is not. The many protests we have had throughout history against
unjust laws, where, more often than not, the protestors were concerned with “what is moral” or a
“higher morality,” would also seem to indicate that distinctions must be made between law and
morality. Law is a public expression of social morality and also is its sanction. Law cannot in
any way replace or substitute for morality, and therefore we cannot arbitrarily equate what is
legal with what is moral. Many times the two “whats” will equate exactly, but many times they
will not; and indeed many times what is legal will not, and perhaps should not, completely cover
what is moral.

t some behaviors are more constrained than others and that there
References:

https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/2/0/5/0205053149.pdf
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/integrity-ethics/teaching-guide/overview-of-modules-and-learning
outcomes.html
https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/MoralTheories.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/9015
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
http://thesimplerway.info/Morality.htm
https://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-epcc-introethics-1/chapter/ethics-and-
law/ https://www.atrainceu.com/content/4-ethics-and-law

CHAPTER 2
Going Deeper into the Ghetto

Learning Outcomes:
• To understand and discern the difference between cultural relativism, ethical relativism
and normative relativism.
• To analyze the structure of the arguments for relativism and assess the truth value of the
premises and the logical structure of the argument.
• To examine the alternatives to relativism to begin the process of crafting a better
understanding of the source and nature of ethical values.
• To understand the relationship between taking responsibility and being ethical, and how
this applies to one's own life

INTRODUCTION

The term ghetto refers to an urban area with low property values and relatively little
public or private investment. The word is slang and is generally considered an offensive
stereotype because ghettos have historically been inhabited by racial minorities. Ghettos are also
characterized by high unemployment, high rates of crime, inadequate municipal services, and
high drop-out rates from schools. Urban neighborhoods classified as ghettos may be severely
underpopulated with abandoned homes, or they may be densely populated with large families
living in small spaces.
The phenomenon of ghetto has existed for centuries. The original ghetto emerged in
medieval Europe, Jews were segregated by religious authorities as the source of moral corruption
and carriers of diseases, such as the Venetian Ghetto. In the modern society, some parts of the
world still have ghettos in cities, such as African-American ghettos in United States. As a special
community that combines with social, economic and historical elements, the definition of ghetto
is being put forward under a controversial position. For instance, some scholars insist that ghetto
should be defined by racial segregation and subjugation without limitations on poverty and class.
Others argue that areas with concentrated poverty are ghettos despite racial or ethnic makeup.
Still some scholars synthesize all the characteristics to consider the ghetto.
According to a large number of investigations and debates, several constituents of ghetto
could be concluded below: concentrated poverty; involuntary segregation and spatial
confinement; racism, stigma and constraints; institutional encasement. To do a deeper research of
ghetto needs a clear starting point, it is the definition. What the ghetto is? Who live in the ghetto?
What are the constituents of a ghetto? Does the concentrated poverty stand for the ghetto or not?
So many puzzled questions and debates linger in our minds. This paper will introduce three
typical ghettos briefly first, and combining those examples with several scholars’ points to
analyze every constituent of the ghetto mentioned above for achieving a more explicit concept of
the word ‘ghetto’.

2.1 Brief Introduction of Three Typical Ghettos

➢ The Venetian Ghetto

From the historical point of view, the ghetto was established in medieval Europe, "Perhaps
due to the power of stereotypical representations of ghettos in the United States, and more
recently the rise of the ‘ghetto fabulous’ discourse, it is seldom acknowledged that the term
ghetto in fact comes from Renaissance (16th century) Venice" (Slater, 2009).
In 1516, around 700 Jews were banished to the Ghetto Nuovo, it was an island located in the
Northwest edge of the city, and the entry was controlled by two gates which were locked at
sunset (Haynes, 2008). The Ghetto Vecchio and the Ghetto Nuocissimo were built following the
establishment of Ghetto Nuovo.
Ghettos were surrounded by water and high walls, outer windows and doors were sealed, police
guarded the entry and patrolled through canals. Jews could leave the ghetto in morning for
economic activities, but they had to wear yellow badges out of the ghetto – yellow circles for
men and yellow scarves for women, and they were forced to back the ghetto before sunset.
For time and spatial confinement, Jews had limited communication with the outer world;
therefore, they reserved their own culture and developed their own institutions and
administrative priorities within the walls. "Everything from synagogues to markets, from schools
to charities formed and developed behind ghetto walls (Slater, 2009)."

➢ Japanese Burakumin
Burakumin were seen officially as rural outcasts and the lowest class in Tokugawa era (1603
– 1868). The Tokugawa government divided people into four classes: samurai, peasant, artisan
and merchant. Burakumin ranked behind merchant and were usually formed of hinin and eta,
‘hinin’ includes town guards, street cleaners and executioners, ‘eta’ includes butchers, tanners,
leather-makers, and undertakers (Slater, 2009). Both hinin and eta are discriminated words,
‘hinin’ means ‘non-human’ and ‘eta’ means ‘filthy’ in Japanese, they are all untouchable in the
eyes of Buddhism and Shinto. Burakumin had to obey various rules which were set legally,
firstly, they lived in Buraku only, and could enter into the town during daytime; secondly, they
had to wear yellow collars and to walk on barefoot; thirdly, they were forced to drop on their
hands and knees when met commoners; the fourth rule, marriages were limited, they just could
married with Burakumin.
Burakumin were emancipated in 1871, they could move into cities but with notorious
conditions, for instance, living in districts around garbage dumps, jails or crematoria with high
crime rate and messy social order; job opportunities hanged in the range between low-paying and
dirty works; separated schools established for them to be educated; permanent marks of
Burakumin stay still for the existence of a ‘family registration system’ in Japan (Devos &
Wagatsuma, 1966). The Burakumin Defense League counted that around three million
Burakumin were trapped in 6,000 ghettos in Japanese cities in late 1970. According to some
Japanese citizens, they said it is difficult for Burakumin to find a job because they will be
identified by the address information even in nowadays.

➢ The Venetian Ghetto

After World War I, a huge influx of African migrated from the North to the South in
America, on one hand, this phenomenon was resulted from the Jim Crow racism, on the other
hand, the mushrooming industries needed unskilled labor for speedily expanding economy.
However, as Slater (2009) mentioned that the mass African migrants "was seen by whites as a
disturbing threat to racial purity, the moral order of the time."
The blacks were discriminated and segregated by the white Americans, they were confined in
fields of housing, polity, public accommodation, schooling and economy (Osofsky, 1971).
African Americans had to find shelter within limited boundaries, and developed their own
institutions to meet basic needs, such as black churches, black schools, black business and clubs,
black political and civic associations (Wacquant, 2004).

2.2 Ethical Relativism

“Ethical relativism, the doctrine that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is
morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society.” Ethical
relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is,
whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is
practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.
For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be
universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's
practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common
framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among
members of different societies.
Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral
practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do
not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was
common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they
entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned
in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty
to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral
principles but agree on the principles.
Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas
others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may
depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression,
may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other
differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean
that all practices are relative. Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its
implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or
wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the
norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally.
This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are
morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view
promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society.

Types of Relativism
❖ Cultural Relativism
Describes the simple fact that there are different cultures and each has different ways of
behaving, thinking and feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation.
There is an enormous amount of evidence to confirm this claim. It is well known by just
about every human on the planet that people do things differently around the globe.
People dress differently, eat differently, speak different languages, sing different songs,
have different music and dances and have many different customs.
❖ Descriptive Ethical Relativism
Describes the fact that in different cultures one of the variants is the sense of morality: the
mores, customs and ethical principles may all vary from one culture to another. There is a
great deal of information available to confirm this as well. What is thought to be moral
in one country may be thought to be immoral and even made illegal in another
country. ❖ Normative Ethical Relativism
Is a theory, which claims that there are no universally valid moral principles. Normative
ethical relativism theory says that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies
from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding
on all men at all times. The theory claims that all thinking about the basic principles of
morality (Ethics) is always relative. Each culture establishes the basic values and
principles that serve as the foundation for morality. The theory claims that this is the case
now, has always been the case and will always be the case.

Four Reasons (Arguments) for Ethical Relativism

1. The Diversity of Moral Views For:
The actual fact that People and Societies have and continue to disagree about the moral
issues, they continue to hold different moral beliefs. For a Relativist, this fact is best explained
by and is therefore evidence for E.R.; otherwise we would expect to find considerable moral
agreement. (See Ruth Benedict). In sum: The fact of disagreement and differences in moral
beliefs is evidence for the claim that there are no objective moral truths, only subjective moral
beliefs.
2. Moral Uncertainty For:
Despite our best efforts, we are often uncertain about what is the right thing to do, especially
in the context of a dilemma, our judgment seems to be very subjective, a matter of personal
opinion. There seems to be no decisive way to settle many moral disputes, in contrast with
factual disputes. Relativism based on epistemic uncertainty and/or skepticism. In sum, the fact
that I do not know for certain in a given situation what is right implies that there is no objective
standard; hence morality is relative and subjective.
3. Situational Differences For:
The actual situation in which people live are often very different, it is implausible to believe
that there could be one set of moral principles or rules that are universally true for all persons at
all times. In sum, given the many differences in particular circumstances, what we all morality
must be relative to the particular situation and no objective or universally valid moral norms
exist.
4. Toleration of Differences For:
People from different cultures have different moral beliefs, one ought to tolerate, i.e., not be
critical of, these beliefs. One ought not to think that one view is better or more correct than
another, hence one should adopt ethical relativism, which entails that all moral beliefs are
equally correct. In sum, Ethical Relativism promotes Tolerance for differences and/or Tolerance
is consistent with ethical relativism.
Relativism by Contrast
A second approach to defining relativism casts its net more widely by focusing primarily
on what relativists deny. Defined negatively, relativism amounts to the rejection of a number of
interconnected philosophical positions. Traditionally, relativism is contrasted with:

Absolutism, the view that at least some truths or values in the relevant domain apply to all times,
places or social and cultural frameworks. They are universal and not bound by historical or social
conditions. Absolutism is often used as the key contrast idea to relativism.

Objectivism or the position that cognitive, ethical and aesthetic norms and values in general, but
truth in particular, are independent of judgments and beliefs at particular times and places, or in
other words they are (non-trivially) mind-independent. The anti-objectivist on the other hand,
denies that there is such thing as simply being ‘true’, ‘good’, ‘tasty’ or ‘beautiful’ but argues that
we can coherently discuss such values only in relation to parameters that have something to do
with our mental lives.

Monism or the view that, in any given area or topic subject to disagreement, there can be no
more than one correct opinion, judgment, or norm. The relativist often wishes to allow for a
plurality of equally valid values or even truths.

Realism, when defined in such a way that it entails both the objectivity and singularity of truth,
also stands in opposition to relativism.
Arguments for Ethical Relativism
(i) Herodotus, the Greek historian of the 5th century BC, advanced this view when he
observed that different societies have different customs and that each person thinks his
own society’s customs are best. But no set of social customs, Herodotus said, is really
better or worse than any other. Some contemporary sociologists and anthropologists have
argued along similar lines that morality, because it is a social product, develops
differently within different cultures. Each society develops standards that are used by
people within it to distinguish acceptable from
unacceptable behavior, and every judgment of right and wrong presupposes one or
another of these standards. Thus, according to these researchers, if practices such as
polygamy or infanticide are considered right within a society, then they are right “for
that society”; and if the same practices are considered wrong within a different
society, then those practices are wrong for that society. There is no such thing as what
is “really” right, apart from these social codes, for there is no culture-neutral standard
to which we can appeal to determine which society’s view is correct.
(ii) A second type of argument for ethical relativism is due to the Scottish philosopher David
Hume (1711–76), who claimed that moral beliefs are based on “sentiment,” or
emotion, rather than on reason. This idea was developed by the 20th-century school
of logical positivism and by later philosophers such as Charles L. Stevenson (1908–
79) and R.M. Hare (1919–2002), who held that the primary function of moral
language is not to state facts but to express feelings of approval or disapproval toward
some action or to influence the attitudes and actions of others. On this view, known as
emotivism, right and wrong are relative to individual preferences rather than to social
standards. Ethical relativism is attractive to many philosophers and social scientists
because it seems to offer the best explanation of the variability of moral belief. It also
offers a plausible way of explaining how ethics fits into the world as it is described by
modern science. Even if the natural world ultimately consists of nothing but value
neutral facts, say the relativists, ethics still has a foundation in human feelings and
social arrangements.
Finally, ethical relativism seems especially well suited to explain the virtue of
tolerance. If, from an objective point of view, one’s own values and the values of
one’s society have no special standing, then an attitude of “live and let live” toward
other people’s values seems appropriate.
Criticisms of Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism, then, is a radical doctrine that is contrary to what many thoughtful people
commonly assume. As such, it should not be confused with the uncontroversial thought that
what is right depends on the circumstances. Ethical relativism merely the idea that different
people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory
about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A
consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all
people and all societies.
Critics have lodged a number of complaints against this doctrine. They point out that if
ethical relativism is correct, it would mean that even the most outrageous practices, such as
slavery and the physical abuse of women, are “right” if they are countenanced by the standards
of the relevant society. Relativism therefore deprives us of any means of raising moral objections
against horrendous social customs, provided that those customs are approved by the codes of the
societies in which they exist.
Critics say, it is a mistake to think that relativism implies that we should be tolerant,
because tolerance is simply another value about which people or societies may disagree. Only an
absolutist could say that tolerance is objectively good. Critics also point out that disagreement
about ethics does not mean that there can be no objective truth. After all, people disagree even
about scientific matters. Some people believe that disease is caused by evil spirits, while others
believe it is caused by microbes, but we do not on that account conclude that disease has no
“real” cause. The same might be true of ethics—disagreement might only mean that some people
are more enlightened than others.
Anthropologists have observed that, while there is some variation from culture to culture,
there are also some values that all societies have in common. Some values are, in fact, necessary
for society to exist. Without rules requiring truthfulness, for example, there could be no
communication, and without rules against murder and assault, people could not live together.
Lastly, to the claim that there is no legitimate way to judge a society’s practices “from the
outside,” critics may reply that we can always ask whether a particular cultural practice works to
the advantage or disadvantage of the people within the culture.

2.3 Egoism

Egoism is the philosophy concerned with the role of the self, or ego, as the motivation
and goal of one's own action. Different theories on egoism encompass a range of disparate ideas
and can generally be categorized into descriptive or normative forms. People act for many
reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good
of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for
others’ interests. Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for
her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will. Some philosophers argue
that an individual has no choice in these matters, claiming that a person’s acts are determined by
prior events which make illusory any belief in choice.
Nevertheless, if an element of choice is permitted against the great causal impetus from
nature, or God, it follows that a person possesses some control over her next action, and, that,
therefore, one may inquire as to whether the individual does, or, should choose a self-or-other
oriented action. Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own
interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others’ interest instead: to what
extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared to self-regarding acts?

ETHICAL EGOISM
1. Common-sense Egoism:
According to this view, egoism is a vice. It involves putting one’s own concerns over those
of others. One’s behavior is egoistic if it involves putting one’s own interests over those of others
to an immoderate degree.
2. Psychological Egoism
❖ Argument For: Human agents always, at least on a deep-down level, are all egoists
insofar as our behavior, explainable in terms of our beliefs and desires, is always aimed at
what we believe is our greatest good (Baier, 1991, p. 203).
❖ Objection: The psychological egoist confuses egoistic desires with motivation. An agent
may act contrary to his desires and what is in his own best interest. People often act in
ways that they know are detrimental to their well being. Moreover, what one most wants
may not be in their own self-interest (e.g., giving money to Amnesty International rather
than buying a new CD). MacKinnon adds that, “Even if it were shown that we often act
for the sake of our own interest, this is not enough to prove that psychological egoism is
true. According to this theory, we must show that people always act to promote their own
interests”
3. Egoism as a Means to the Common Good
❖ Argument For: According to the economist, Adam Smith, when entrepreneurs are
unimpeded by legal or self-imposed moral constraint to protect the good of others, they
are able to promote their own good and, as a result, provide the most efficient means of
 promoting the good of others (Baier, 1991, p. 201; see MacKinnon, p. 24). Such a view
leads to the doctrine that, “if each pursues her own interest as she conceives of it, then the
interest of everyone is promoted” (Baier, 1991, p. 200).
❖ Objection: Apart from positing an “invisible hand” guiding the market processes, the
common-good egoist makes the fallacy, ascribed to J.S. Mill, that if each person
promotes her own interest, then everyone else’s interests are thereby promoted. “Clearly,
this is a fallacy, for the interests of different individuals or classes may, and under certain
conditions (of which the scarcity of necessities is the most obvious), do conflict. Then the
interest of one is the detriment of the other” (Baier, 1991, p. 200).
4. Rational Egoism:
Rational egoism is concerned with reasonable action.
❖ Strong Rational Egoism: It is always rational to aim at one’s own greatest good, and
never rational not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
❖ Weak Rational Egoism: It is always rational to aim at one’s own greatest good, but not
necessarily never rational not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
❖ Argument For: When doing something does not prima facie appear to be in our interest,
our doing said act requires that we justify our action by showing that it is in our interest,
thereby justifying our action.
❖ Objection: Such an approach to justifying actions in our own interest may be abused if
we do not have criteria established to determine what the interests of agents amount to. If
such criteria are established, such actions may be reasonable so long as they do not result in
conflicts between agents. In such cases, creative middle ways are called for. 5. Ethical
Egoism:
Coupled with ethical rationalism—”the doctrine that if a moral requirement or
recommendation is to be sound or acceptable, complying with it must be in accordance
with reason”—rational egoism implies ethical egoism (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
❖ Strong Ethical Egoism: It is always right to aim at one’s own greatest good, and never
right not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
❖ Weak Ethical Egoism: It is always right to aim at one’s own greatest good, but not
necessarily never right not to do so (Baier, 1991, p. 201).
❖ Argument For: If we accept rational egoism, and if we accept ethical rationalism, then we
must accept ethical egoism. This is the case because if acting in one’s own self-interest is
reasonable, then it is a moral requirement that one acts in one’s own self-interest.
❖ Objection: Ethical egoism is incompatible with ethical conflict-regulation. Consider the
following example from Kurt Baier, regarding the problem over whether it would be
morally wrong for me to kill my grandfather so that he will be unable to change his will
and disinherit me (1991, p. 202)
Assuming that my killing him will be in my best interest but detrimental to my grandfather,
while refraining from killing him will be to my detriment but in my grandfather’s interest, then if
ethical conflict-regulation is sound, there can be a sound moral guideline regulating this conflict
(presumably by forbidding this killing). But then ethical egoism cannot be sound, for it precludes
the interpersonally authoritative regulation of interpersonal conflicts of interest, since such a
regulation implies that conduct contrary to one’s interest is sometimes morally required of one,
and conduct in one’s best interest is sometimes morally forbidden to one.

2.4 Popular Ethics

Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is concerned with questions of how people ought to act, and
the search for a definition of right conduct (identified as the one causing the greatest good) and
the good life (in the sense of a life worth living or a life that is satisfying or happy). The word
"ethics" is derived from the Greek "ethos" (meaning "custom" or "habit"). Ethics differs from
morals and morality in that ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while
morals indicate their practice. Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but
encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or
Weltanschauung).
It asks questions like "How should people act?" (Normative or Prescriptive Ethics),
"What do people think is right?" (Descriptive Ethics), "How do we take moral knowledge and
put it into practice?" (Applied Ethics), and "What does 'right' even mean?" (Meta-Ethics). See
below for more discussion of these categories.
Cynicism is an ancient doctrine best exemplified by the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope,
who lived in a tub on the streets of Athens. He taught that a life lived according to Nature was
better than one that conformed to convention, and that a simple life is essential to virtue and
happiness. As a moral teacher, Diogenes emphasized detachment from many of those things
conventionally considered "good".
Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. This may
range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others and
with no thought for the future (Cyrenaic Hedonism), to those who believe that the most ethical
pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people. Somewhere in the middle of this
continuum, Epicureanism observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes results in negative
consequences, such as pain and fear, which are to be avoided.
Pyrrhonian Skepticism or Pyrrho, the founding figure taught that one cannot rationally decide
between what is good and what is bad although, generally speaking, self-interest is the primary
motive of human behavior, and he was disinclined to rely upon sincerity, virtue or Altruism as
motivations.
Humanism, with its emphasis on the dignity and worth of all people and their ability to
determine right and wrong purely by appeal to universal human qualities (especially rationality),
can be traced back to Thales, Xenophanes of Colophon (570 - 480 B.C.), Anaxagoras, Pericles
(c. 495 - 429 B.C.), Protagoras, Democritus and the historian Thucydides (c. 460 - 375 B.C.).
These early Greek thinkers were all instrumental in the move away from a spiritual morality
based on the supernatural, and the development of a more humanistic freethought (the view that
beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic, and not be influenced by emotion,
authority, tradition or dogma)

Normative Ethics
Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics) is the branch of ethics concerned with
establishing how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or
bad, and which actions are right or wrong. It attempts to develop a set of rules governing
human conduct, or a set of norms for action. Normative ethical theories are usually split into
three main categories:
a.Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) argues that the morality of an action is contingent
on the action's outcome or result. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good
outcome or consequence. Some consequentialist theories include:
❖ Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for
the greatest number of people ("happiness" here is defined as the maximization of
pleasure and the minimization of pain). The origins of Utilitarianism can be traced
back as far as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but its full formulation is usually
credited to Jeremy Bentham, with John Stuart Mill as its foremost proponent.
❖ Hedonism, which is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of
mankind, and that individuals should strive to maximize their own total pleasure (net of
any pain or suffering). Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to
maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than
pleasure).
❖ Egoism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self. Thus,
Egoism may license actions which are good for the individual, but detrimental to the
general welfare. Individual Egoism holds that all people should do whatever benefits him
or her self. Personal Egoism holds that each person should act in his own self-interest, but
makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do. Universal Egoism holds that
everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest.
❖ Asceticism, which is, in some ways, the opposite of Egoism in that it describes a life
characterized by abstinence from egoistic pleasures especially to achieve a spiritual
goal.
❖ Altruism, which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best
consequences for everyone except for himself, according to Auguste Comte's dictum,
"Live for others". Thus, individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or benefit
others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self-interest.
b. Rule Consequentialism, which is a theory (sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile
Consequentialism and Deontology), that moral behavior involves following certain rules, but
that those rules should be chosen based on the consequences that the selection of those rules
have.
c. Negative Consequentialism, which focuses on minimizing bad consequences rather than
promoting good consequences. This may actually require active intervention (to prevent harm
from being done), or may only require passive avoidance of bad outcomes.
Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D. Ross
(1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken into
consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon: beneficence (to help other people
to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc); non-maleficence (to avoid harming other
people); justice (to ensure people get what they deserve); self-improvement (to improve
ourselves); reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them);
gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us); promise-keeping (to act according to explicit
and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth). In some circumstances,
there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one
duty may "trump" another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of
significance.

Contractarian Ethics (or the Moral Theory of Contractarianism) claims that moral norms
derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. It holds that moral
acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased, and that moral rules themselves are
a sort of a contract, and therefore only people who understand and agree to the terms of the
contract are bound by it. The theory stems initially from political Contractarianism and the
principle of social contract developed by Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and John
Locke, which essentially holds that people give up some rights to a government and/or other
authority in order to receive, or jointly preserve, social order. Contractualism is a variation on
Contractarianism, although based more on the Kantian ideas that ethics is an essentially
interpersonal matter, and that right and wrong are a matter of whether we can justify the action to
other people.

Virtue Ethics, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or
consequences of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues (those habits and
behaviors that will allow a person to achieve "eudaimonia", or well being or a good life),
counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and claims that a lifetime of
practicing these virtues leads to, or in effect constitutes, happiness and the good life.
❖ Eudaimonism is a philosophy originated by Aristotle that defines right action as that
which leads to "well being", and which can be achieved by a lifetime of practicing the
virtues in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of practical wisdom. It was
first advocated by Plato and is particularly associated with Aristotle, and became the
prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the Ancient and Medieval periods. It fell out of
favor in the Early Modern period, but has recently undergone a modern resurgence.

Agent-Based Theories give an account of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions

about which character traits are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc),
which we can identify by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars.

Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers, and calls for a change in how we view
morality and the virtues, shifting towards the more marginalized virtues exemplified by women,
such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc.

Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions

themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It
argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights
(the Greek 'deon' means 'obligation' or 'duty').

Some deontological theories include:

❖ Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which states that an action is
right if God has decreed that it is right, and that an act is obligatory if and only if (and
because) it is commanded by God. Thus, moral obligations arise from God's commands,
and the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a
duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. William of
Ockham, René Descartes and the 18th Century Calvinists all accepted versions of this
moral theory.
❖ Natural Rights Theory (such as that espoused by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke),
which holds that humans have absolute, natural rights (in the sense of universal rights
that are inherent in the nature of ethics, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs).
This eventually developed into what we today call human rights.
❖ Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity's rational capacity and asserts
certain inviolable moral laws. Kant's formulation is deontological in that he argues that to
act in the morally right way, people must act according to duty, and that it is the motives
of the person who carries out the action that make them right or wrong, not the
consequences of the actions. Simply stated, the Categorical Imperative states that one
should only act in such a way that one could want the maxim (or motivating principle) of
one's action to become a universal law, and that one should always treat people as an end
as well as a means to an end.

Descriptive Ethics
Descriptive Ethics is a value-free approach to ethics which examines ethics from the
perspective of observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. It is the study of
people's beliefs about morality, and implies the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribing,
theories of value or of conduct. It is not designed to provide guidance to people in making moral
decisions, nor is it designed to evaluate the reasonableness of moral norms. It is more likely to
be investigated by those working in the fields of evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology,
history or anthropology, although information that comes from descriptive ethics is also used in
philosophical arguments. Descriptive Ethics is sometimes referred to as Comparative Ethics
because so much activity can involve comparing ethical systems: comparing the ethics of the
past to the present; comparing the ethics of one society to another; and comparing the ethics
which people claim to follow with the actual rules of conduct which do describe their actions.

Applied Ethics
Applied Ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-
life situations. Strict, principle-based ethical approaches often result in solutions to specific
problems that are not universally acceptable or impossible to implement. Applied Ethics is much
more ready to include the insights of psychology, sociology and other relevant areas of
knowledge in its deliberations. It is used in determining public policy. The following would be
questions of Applied Ethics: "Is getting an abortion immoral?", "Is euthanasia immoral?", "Is
affirmative action right or wrong?", "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?"
and "Do animals have rights as well?"

2.5 Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide
range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are
actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of
consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions,
laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general,
whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall
results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” i.e.
that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative
principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex
because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a)
what things are good and bad; b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim
to maximize; and c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual
consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences
(the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have).

What is Good?
Jeremy Bentham answered this question by adopting the view called hedonism.
According to hedonism, the only thing that is good in itself is pleasure (or happiness). Hedonists
do not deny that many different kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom,
and many other things, but hedonists see these as “instrumental” goods that are valuable only
because they play a causal role in producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure and happiness,
however, are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that they are good in themselves and not because they
produce some further valuable thing.
Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food, friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad
because it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering and unhappiness are
intrinsically bad, i.e. bad in themselves and not because they produce some further bad thing.
Whose Well-being?
Utilitarian reasoning can be used for many different purposes. It can be used both for moral
reasoning and for any type of rational decision-making. In addition to applying in different
contexts, it can also be used for deliberations about the interests of different persons and groups.

i. Individual Self-interest(See egoism.)

When individuals are deciding what to do for themselves alone, they consider only their own
utility. For example, if you are choosing ice cream for yourself, the utilitarian view is that you
should choose the flavor that will give you the most pleasure. If you enjoy chocolate but hate
vanilla, you should choose chocolate for the pleasure it will bring and avoid vanilla because it
will bring displeasure. In addition, if you enjoy both chocolate and strawberry, you should
predict which flavor will bring you more pleasure and choose whichever one will do that.
In this case, because utilitarian reasoning is being applied to a decision about which action is
best for an individual person, it focuses only on how the various possible choices will affect
this single person’s interest and does not consider the interests of other people.

ii. Groups
People often need to judge what is best not only for themselves or other individuals but
alsowhat is best for groups, such as friends, families, religious groups, one’s country, etc.
Because Bentham and other utilitarians were interested in political groups and public policies,
they often focused on discovering which actions and policies would maximize the well-being of
the relevant group. Their method for determining the well-being of a group involved adding up
the benefits and losses that members of the group would experience as a result of adopting one
action or policy. The well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of
its members.
To illustrate this method, suppose that you are buying ice cream for a party that ten
people will attend. Your only flavor options are chocolate and vanilla, and some of the people
attending like chocolate while others like vanilla. As a utilitarian, you should choose the flavor
that will result in the most pleasure for the group as a whole. If seven like chocolate and three
like vanilla and if all of them get the same amount of pleasure from the flavor they like, then you
should choose chocolate. This will yield what Bentham, in a famous phrase, called “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number.”

iii. Everyone Affected

While there are circumstances in which the utilitarian analysis focuses on the interests of
specific individuals or groups, the utilitarian moral theory requires that moral judgments be
based on what Peter Singer calls the “equal consideration of interests.” Utilitarianism moral
theory then, includes the important idea that when we calculate the utility of actions, laws, or
policies, we must do so from an impartial perspective and not from a “partialist” perspective that
favors ourselves, our friends, or others we especially care about. Bentham is often cited as the
source of a famous utilitarian axiom: “every man to count for one, nobody for more than one.”

Actual Consequences or Foreseeable Consequences?

Utilitarians disagree about whether judgments of right and wrong should be based on the
actual consequences of actions or their foreseeable consequences. This issue arises when the
actual effects of actions differ from what we expected. One reason for adopting foreseeable
consequence utilitarianism is that it seems unfair to say that the rescuer acted wrongly because
the rescuer could not foresee the future bad effects of saving the drowning person. In response,
actual consequence utilitarians reply that there is a difference between evaluating an action and
evaluating the person who did the action. In their view, while the rescuer’s action was wrong, it
would be a mistake to blame or criticize the rescuer because the bad results of his act were
unforeseeable. They stress the difference between evaluating actions and evaluating the people
who perform them.
Foreseeable consequence utilitarians accept the distinction between evaluating actions
and evaluating the people who carry them out, but they see no reason to make the moral
rightness or wrongness of actions depend on facts that might be unknowable. For them, what is
right or wrong for a person to do depends on what is knowable by a person at a time. For this
reason, they claim that the person who rescued Hitler did the right thing, even though the actual
consequences were unfortunate.

Act Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons

Act utilitarianism is often seen as the most natural interpretation of the utilitarian ideal. If
our aim is always to produce the best results, it seems plausible to think that in each case of
deciding what is the right thing to do, we should consider the available options (i.e. what actions
could be performed), predict their outcomes, and approve of the action that will produce the most
good.

Arguments for Act Utilitarianism

i. Why Act utilitarianism Maximizes Utility
If every action that we carry out yields more utility than any other action available to us,
then the total utility of all our actions will be the highest possible level of utility that we could
bring about. In other words, we can maximize the overall utility that is within our power to bring
about by maximizing the utility of each individual action that we perform. If we sometimes
choose actions that produce less utility than is possible, the total utility of our actions will be less
than the amount of goodness that we could have produced.
ii. Why Act Utilitarianism is Better than Traditional, Rule-based Moralities Traditional
moral codes often consist of sets of rules regarding types of actions. The Ten Commandments,
for example, focus on types of actions, telling us not to kill, steal, bear false witness, commit
adultery, or covet the things that belong to others. Although the Biblical sources permit
exceptions to these rules (such as killing in self-defense and punishing people for their sins), the
form of the commandments is absolute. They tell us “thou shalt not do x” rather than saying
“thou shalt not do x except in circumstances a, b, or c.
iii. Why Act Utilitarianism Makes Moral Judgments Objectively True One advantage of
act utilitarianism is that it shows how moral questions can have objectively true answers.
Often, people believe that morality is subjective and depends only on people’s desires or
sincere beliefs. Act utilitarianism, however, provides a method for showing which moral
beliefs are true and which are false.
Once we embrace the act utilitarian perspective, then every decision about how we
should act will depend on the actual or foreseeable consequences of the available options. If we
can predict the amount of utility/good results that will be produced by various possible actions,
then we can know which ones are right or wrong. Although some people doubt that we can
measure amounts of well-being, we in fact do this all the time. If two people are suffering and we
have enough medication for only one, we can often tell that one person is experiencing mild
discomfort while the other is in severe pain. Based on this judgment, we will be confident that
we can do more good by giving the medication to the person suffering extreme pain. Although
this case is very simple, it shows that we can have objectively true answers to questions about
what actions are morally right or wrong
 2.6 Moral Dilemma
What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards
herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible.
Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral
dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do
each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems
condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do
something that she ought to do).
The Platonic case strikes many as too easy to be characterized as a genuine moral
dilemma. For the agent’s solution in that case is clear; it is more important to protect people from
harm than to return a borrowed weapon. And in any case, the borrowed item can be returned
later, when the owner no longer poses a threat to others. Thus in this case we can say that the
requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay one’s debts
by returning a borrowed item when its owner so demands. When one of the conflicting
requirements overrides the other, we have a conflict but not a genuine moral dilemma. So in
addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also
be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden

Dilemmas and Consistency

We shall return to the issue of whether it is possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. But
what about the desirability of doing so? Why have ethicists thought that their theories should
preclude the possibility of dilemmas? At the intuitive level, the existence of moral dilemmas
suggests some sort of inconsistency. An agent caught in a genuine dilemma is required to do
each of two acts but cannot do both. And since he cannot do both, not doing one is a condition of
doing the other. Thus, it seems that the same act is both required and forbidden. But exposing a
logical inconsistency takes some work; for initial inspection reveals that the inconsistency
intuitively felt is not present.
Similarly rules that generate moral dilemmas are not inconsistent, at least on the usual
understanding of that term. Ruth Marcus suggests plausibly that we “define a set of rules as
consistent if there is some possible world in which they are all obeyable in all circumstances in
that world.” Thus, “rules are consistent if there are possible circumstances in which no conflict
will emerge,” and “a set of rules is inconsistent if there are no circumstances, no possible world,
in which all the rules are satisfiable”
Ethicists who are concerned that their theories not allow for moral dilemmas have more
than consistency in mind. What is troubling is that theories that allow for dilemmas fail to be
uniquely action-guiding. A theory can fail to be uniquely action-guiding in either of two ways:
by recommending incompatible actions in a situation or by not recommending any action at all.
Theories that generate genuine moral dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding in the former
way. Theories that have no way, even in principle, of determining what an agent should do in a
particular situation have what Thomas E. Hill, Jr. calls “gaps” (Hill 1996, 179–183); they fail to
be action-guiding in the latter way. Since one of the main points of moral theories is to provide
agents with guidance, that suggests that it is desirable for theories to eliminate dilemmas and
gaps, at least if doing so is possible.
But failing to be uniquely action-guiding is not the only reason that the existence of
moral dilemmas is thought to be troublesome. Just as important, the existence of dilemmas does
lead to inconsistencies if certain other widely held theses are true. Here we shall consider two
different arguments, each of which shows that one cannot consistently acknowledge the reality of
moral dilemmas while holding selected (and seemingly plausible) principles.

Types of Moral Dilemmas

❖ Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements
conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting
moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here
does not know which option is morally right or wrong.

❖ Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand, involve situations wherein two or more
moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral
requirements overrides each other. ... A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the
moral agent's wrongdoings.

❖ Self-imposed moral dilemma is when a person knows that two promises are conflicted
therefore it is caused by the agents' wrongdoings.
A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent's wrongdoings. ... A World-imposed
moral dilemma, on the other hand, means that certain events in the world place the agent in a
situation of moral conflict.

❖ Obligation dilemma exists where an agent faces a choice situation in which two (or
more) of her available act alternatives are morally obligatory and yet it is impossible for
 her to perform both of those two act alternatives.

❖ Prohibition dilemmas are choice situations in which all feasible. actions are forbidden. I
argue that they are conceptually possible, and that the standard principles of deontic logic
need to be revised so as not to rule them out.

Multiple Moralities
Another issue raised by the topic of moral dilemmas is the relationship among various
parts of morality. Consider this distinction. General obligations are moral requirements that
individuals have simply because they are moral agents. That agents are required not to kill, not to
steal, and not to assault are examples of general obligations. Agency alone makes these precepts
applicable to individuals. By contrast, role-related obligations are moral requirements that agents
have in virtue of their role, occupation, or position in society.
General obligations and role-related obligations can, and sometimes do, conflict. If a defense
attorney knows the whereabouts of a deceased body, she may have a general obligation to
reveal this information to family members of the deceased. But if she obtained this
information from her client, the role-related obligation of confidentiality prohibits her from
sharing it with others.
” The expression, “dirty hands,” is taken from the title of a play by Sartre (1946). The
idea is that no one can rule without becoming morally tainted. The role itself is fraught with
moral dilemmas. For opponents of moral dilemmas, the problem of dirty hands represents both a
challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to show how conflicts between general
obligations and role-related obligations, and those among the various role-related obligations,
can be resolved in a principled way. The opportunity for theories that purport to have the
resources to eliminate dilemmas—such as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and intuitionism—is to
show how the many moralities under which people are governed are related.

Conclusion
The debate between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism highlights many important
issues about how we should make moral judgments. Act utilitarianism stresses the specific
context and the many individual features of the situations that pose moral problems, and it
presents a single method for dealing with these individual cases. Rule utilitarianism stresses the
recurrent features of human life and the ways in which similar needs and problems arise over and
over again. From this perspective, we need rules that deal with types or classes of actions:
killing, stealing, lying, cheating, taking care of our friends or family, punishing people for
crimes, aiding people in need, etc. Both of these perspectives, however, agree that the main
determinant of what is right or wrong is the relationship between what we do or what form our
moral code takes and what is the impact of our moral perspective on the level of people’s well
being.

REFERENCES:

• Aristotle. Nichomachaean Ethics. Various translations available. Book IX being most pertinent. •
Baier, Kurt. “Egoisim” in A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Blackwell: Oxford. 1990. • Feinberg,
Joel. “Psychological Egoism” in Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. Oxford University
Press: Oxford. 1998.
• Garvin, Lucius. A Modern Introduction to Ethics. Houghton Mifflin: Cambrirdge, MA, 1953. •
Hargreaves-Heap, Shaun P. and Yanis Varoufakis. Game Theory: A Critical Introduction. Routledge:
London, 1995..

https://www.plato-philosophy.org/teachertoolkit/ethical-relativism/
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/integrity-ethics/teaching-guide/overview-of-modules-and
learning-outcomes.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-relativism
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/OtherMaterial/EthicalRelativism.pdf
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/ghetto.asp
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/