Origins of Ethics The terms moral and ethics come from Latin and Greek respectively (mores and

ethos), meaning respectively idea and custom. Ethos means both sentiment and sentiment of community (Toffler, 1986). However, ethics has a larger domain than the moral philosophy, including the last (Pojman, 1998). Also, it is different from religion, by looking after reasoning not just obedience to the rules. Literature about ethics is very old, beginning with Platos Gorgias; The Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, The Discourses by Epictetus, The Leviathan by Hobbes, The Principles of Morals and Legislation by Bentham, The Critique of Practical Reason by Kant, Ethics by Dewey and Tufts, Ethics by Nicolai Hartman, and Principia Ethica by Moore can be cited as the keystone of the topic (Leys, 1964).

Ethics is primarily a philosophical topic. It is one of the branches of philosophy, and deals with morality. As all branches, it tries to find an answer to some fundamental questions such as What rules of conduct should govern the behavior of human being? Is the Golden Rule or existentialisms imperative that individual human being should act as if he/she were acting for all humankind a valid principle? Is virtue innate, environmentally engendered, or rationally conceived? Is the morality same for all humans at all the times, in all situations, and in all places? (Inlow, 1972; Frankena, 1974) 1.2.2 Definition of Ethics Ethics is not a simple term to define. Various authors have done different definitions. One of the simplest is Ethics is a set of rules that define right and wrong (Bonevac1999, p.1), dealing with moral duty and obligation (Toffler, 1986). A complex definition comes from De George (1990, p.14): Ethics is a systematic attempt to make sense of our individual and social moral experience, in such a way as to determine the rules that ought to govern human conduct, the values worth pursuing, and the character traits deserving development in life. High Court Judge Potter Stewart of U.S.A has a more practical definition about ethics: It is knowing the difference between what you have the right to do andwhat you ought to do (Augustine, 1999, p.14)

1.2.3 Ethics and Law Ethics is not the same thing as law. Although law has in general some ethical basis, telling us what is wrong or right, it cannot match all the time. Generally ethics covers larger areas than law, where law cannot cover every single issue in our daily life (Frederick et al., 1988). Latin proverb explains the difference well: De Maximis Non Curat Lex meaning, an ethical problem cannot always be solved with a legal rule (Aktan, 1997). Also, legal and ethical rules can sometimes be contrary to each other, for example, the ethical rule of treating everybody equal and the law for the slavery (Pojman, 1998). Sometimes an ethical dilemma can be whether one should apply a law that seems too contrary to these people own values. Also, sanctions of law are physical and financial, but those of ethics are only of conscience and reputation (Pojman, 1995). This last point is discussable when the sanction for example for a flirt can be nothing according to law, but causing even the murder of the person concerned in an oriental culture. Earl Warren, the late Chief Justice of the U.S.A Supreme Court explained the relation of ethics with law (Burke, 1999, p.538): In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics. Each is indispensable to civilization. Without law, we should be at the mercy of the least scrupulous: without ethics, law could not exist

Ethics and Religion The actual ethical rules, used in western world were merely influenced and shaped by the Judeo-Christian philosophy. According to the theory supporting this opinion, called Divine command theory, an action is right or wrong only if it is commanded or forbidden by God. This theory is widely accepted in the West by religious people, beginning with Jews and Greeks. The reasons of this theory are given as such: God is good and knows what the best is for us or as He is our creator, we should obey Him (Frankena et al., 1974). The opposite view claims that ethics is autonomous; the principles exist independently of God, supported by contemporary writers such as Bertrand Russell (1988) and Kai Nielsen (1998). Pojman (1995) explains the difference by means of a spatial metaphor, by seeing the secular ethics as horizontal (the direction of the norms is human to human) and the religious ethics as vertical (the direction is from God to human). The main difference between these two concepts is that ethics is seeking reason rather than authority to justify its principles.

Ethical Theories 1.3.1 Deontological Ethics 1.3.1.1 General Explanation The word deontological comes from the Greek word deon, for duty (Pojman, 1998). This theory gives emphasize on the act. Deontological view is based on duty that is independent of consequences. An action is right or wrong, not because of its consequences but because of its characteristics. This is a commonly used ethical position in the western history, associated with the Judeo-Christian approach and going back to the Greek Stoic philosophers (De George, 1990). Respecting basic human rights is a criterion to determine which action is ethical. The principal limitation of this method is the difficulty of balancing conflicting rights (Frederick et al., 1988). Other important topics for deontological view are justice and rights. This theory claims that utilitarian logic cannot evaluate these topics appropriately. The most famous theoretician of the theory of justice is John Rawls, with his work A Theory of Justice (1971). The Kantian position of Rawls is based on the distributive justice concept. In order to determine the moral rules, he imagines the society behind a veil of ignorance where nobody would know his/her place within the society (physically or socially). So, the rules determined as fair in this situation would be the moral guides of this society. As a result, he obtained two rules: equal right to the basic liberty and acceptable social and economic inequalities that can be overcome (De George, 1990; p.79-80). These were general rules that can be applied to everybody. We can also add these imperfect duties (degree to which the duty should be fulfilled is indeterminate) and special obligations (where people have some obligations due to these positions, special conditions). Another method is taking the fair distribution of benefits into consideration among the member of the society. Different than the utilitarian reasoning that takes into account only the net sum; the justice reasoning is interested in fair shares. Again, it is difficult to measure costbenefit and the limits of a fair share (Frederick et al., 1988). 1.3.1.2 Act Deontologism Deontologists have different positions. Act deontologists having some general principles; prefer to act according to the situation, in the light of these principles. They have again two

models: intuitionist ones and the existentialist ones (Frankena, 1974). Intuitionists consult their conscience in every situation in order to find the right thing to do. Decisionists, sometimes called existentialists, believe that there is no right answer; our choice makes one thing right or wrong. J.P.Sartre had such position (Pojman, 1995). Act deontologists are in a position between the rule deontologists and the consequentialists. 1.3.1.3 Rule deontologism Rule deontologist acts according to some general moral principles. Again these principles can be monistic, believing that there is only one such principal or pluralistic, having more than one basic principle. The best example of a pluralistic deontologism is W.D.Ross, defending the existence of prima facie (Latin word for at first glance) principles, that should be obeyed but which may be overridden by other relevant moral principles, in case of moral conflict (Frankena, 1974). He listed seven prima facie duties: promise keeping, fidelity, gratitude for favors, beneficence, justice, self-improvement and nonmaleficence (Pojman, 1995). He accepts the idea of Bentham that pleasure is intrinsically good, but argues that there are other things that are good in them (Pojman, 1998). 1.3.1.4 Kant The German philosopher Kant (1724-1804) who had a deontological approach is still influential on the modern moral system (De George, 1990). Kant too was influenced by the Judeo-Christian morality and his theory is compatible with the Ten Commandments. But as the core principle, Kant used rationality. He was an absolutist and rationalist. Being a rule deontologist, Kant was against teleologism, having said that this theory was turning ethics into hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical ones. His classical works Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788) are the basement of his ideas. According to him, the rational was at the same time moral. So the rules of a moral action could be defined as these: consistency (moral actions should not contradict one another), secondly universality (they should be the same everywhere), and lastly they should be a priori, not derived from experience. He claimed that; we do not have the choice between acting morally or not, we should obey these rules. All the rules that one should obey should come from a single more basic nonteleological principle, called categorical imperative (Frankena et al, 1974).

To test an action whether it is moral or not, it should pass all the three tests: if it fails at one of them, then the action is immoral: it should be universal (Act so that the maxim of your action might be willed as a universal law). The second characteristic is the respect for rational beings (Treat everyone as a end, not merely as a means). Lastly, it must stem from and respect the autonomy of rational beings (Only so that the will through the maxims could regard itself at the same time as universally lawgiving) (Bonevac, 1999), meaning that as rational beings, human being can see itself as universal lawmakers, without the help of an external authority such as God, state or culture (Pojman, 1995). But there are two problems associated with this general rule: one is how to determine the level of generality of the rule, and secondly, what to do when we are faced with a clash between the actions (De George, 1990). 1.3.1.5 Ethical Relativism Another theory having place in the deontologism is the ethical relativism. The rejection of ethnocentrism in anthropology in the West leads the public opinion toward ethical relativism (Pojman, 1995). The topic became popular with globalization of the professional life. From one point of view, this globalization is expected to lead universal ethical practices in the professional life; but from another point of view, a new trend, the relativism gains importance and leads to dramatic situation and even chaos, if all local ethical rules are welcome. Ethical relativism claims that when any two cultures or people have different moral views or action, both can be right at the same time, because the rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society. While cultural relativism is descriptive, ethical relativism is normative (De George, 1990). Ethical relativism denies the existence of some general and independent principles. The logic of relativism is explained by toleration and openness. As tolerance and openness are virtues, relativists see their position as morally correct (Bonevac, 1999). This theory also has two forms. One is subjectivism, seeing the ethics as an individual decision: Morality is in the eye of the beholder (Bonevac, 1999). The second view is called conventionalism that takes the social acceptance as the validity criterion (Pojman, 1998). A defender of the ethical relativism, a Greek historian, Herodotus (485-430 B.C), claims, Culture is king. A more recent view in favor of the ethical relativism comes from an American anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1998). After her analysis about different

tribal behaviors, she concludes that every society should be analyzed within itself, and so moral relativism is the correct view.

1.3.1.6 Agapism (Ethics of Love) A last sub category of deontologism is agapism, cited here only in order to give a comprehensive view about the deontologic ethical positions. The term has a Greek origin agape, meaning altruistic love (Pojman, 1995). According to some sources, agapism is a part of the deontological view. According to some others, it is presented as an alternative to all ethical theories. However, the Christian ethics of love has an important place in all theories. According to this position, there is only one moral principle: to love God and/or humankind. All other rules derive from this main principle (Frankena et. al, 1974). This has the Islamic counterpart in the philosophy of Mevlana, lived in the 12th century in Anatolia. His love for God encompassed the divine boundaries and embraced all humanity, without making any difference between them. According to him, all human beings deserve respect and to be loved because they are Gods creatures. 1.3.2 Consequentialist Ethics The second category of moral approach is the teleological one, which will be taken in this study as the consequentialist ethics. In fact, consequentialism is not a moral principle itself but a category in which some principles are grouped (Harwood, 1998). According to this idea, the goodness of an action depends on the consequences of this action. The most famous of this kind of theories is utilitarianism. The word teleological comes from the Greek word telos, meaning, goal-directed (Pojman, 1998). Teleologists differ about the determination of the good and evil: they can be hedonist or nonhedonist. The second point that differentiates them is; whose good is to be promoted. Ethical egoism claims that one should promote its own good; utilitarianism is looking after the good for the greatest number of people. A third kind of thought claims that we should promote the good of our family, nation or class (Frankena et. al, 1974). 1.3.2.1 Utilitarianism a. General Explanations

Logic generally sums up all the benefits and the costs of an action and compares the results. An action is right if it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action. The important point is that all the people affected by this action should be taken into account (De George, 1990). Utilitarianism is a monistic moral principle, the only criterion taken into account is the psychological satisfaction, and however, there are different views about the source of this satisfaction, leading to different subgroups of utilitarianism (Harwood, 1998). This is a widespread theory in the western culture, due to the rise of the middle class, science, industry and democracy, with the influence of the Christian ethics of love, according to Frankena and Granrose (1974). The earliest example of utilitarian logic is found in Sophocles Antigone. Mentioned in Platos dialogue, first advocated by Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), David Hume (1711-1776) and Adam Smith (1723-1790), lately it has been fully developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). They were the pioneers of a secular humanism (Pojman, 1995). i)Act utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism is also called extreme, direct, or unmodified utilitarianism, and the most natural form of the utilitarianism (Frankena et. al, 1974). The principle rule is that each action should be subjected to the utilitarian test individually (De George, 1990). The principle of act utilitarianism mentioned by Lehrer (1975, p.255) as follows: An act is right if and only if its utility is at least as great as that of any of its alternatives. Of course, as Bentham said so, one can use the past experience of the humankind, if the situation is similar. For the decision, one must take the long run and the short-run consequences into account, the direct and the indirect effects. Jeremy Bentham, G. E. Moore and J.J.C. Smart can be mentioned as the followers of this theory. The idea of Bentham was that when calculating the good and the evil, we should not consider the whole world, but takes into consideration only those whose interests are affected. For him, the importance was on the quantitative dimension of the pleasure. As he said: Quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin (a childs game) is as good as poetry (Frankena et. al, 1974, p.130). The central issue for Moore was the definition of the good. He distinguished what was good as a mean and what was intrinsically good, especially in his work Ethics. He is also named as the father of the metaethics by some (Tepe, 1992).

What differentiates the act utilitarianism from the general utilitarianism is that act utilitarianism does not take this question into account: What would happen if everybody does the same thing? However, this is an important decision criterion for the general utilitarianism. The arguments against act utilitarianism claim that this form of utilitarianism can be sometimes morally wrong, because of the use of individual judgments toward each and every act to be evaluated (Lehrer, 1975). ii) Rule utilitarianism: It is also called restricted, indirect or modified utilitarianism (Frankena et. al, 1974). The claim is that utility principles should be applied not to the individual actions but to the groups of actions. Rule utilitarianism was first formulated by George Berkeley and William Paley and has become popular again nowadays. The difference of the rule utilitarianism is that before looking at the utility of the proposed action, we should check whether the rule is valid. Rule utilitarianism and rule deontologism seem very similar, at the point that rules are important. But the differentiating point is that rules are intrinsic values for the deontologists, whereas, they are instrumental for the teleologists (Pojman, 1998). Generally rule utilitarianism is preferred to the act utilitarianism by the philosophers who are convinced by the principles of the utilitarianism. This is because the objections made by the deontologists like Butler, Ross and Ripley for the act utilitarianism are avoided by the rule utilitarianism (Frankena et. al, 1974). Also, the wish to use the accumulated human knowledge (De George, 1990) is another reason for this preference. The position of J.S. Mill (1806-1873) is the subject of a big debate; it is not clear whether he is a rule or act utilitarianist (Pojman, 1998). Harwood (1998) preference is for act-utilitarianism, claiming that rule-utilitarianism has more deficiencies. 1.3.2.2 Ethical Egoism Ethical egoism is another branch of consequentialism, after utiliterianism. It has four types: psychological egoism claiming that we have no choice but being selfish, personal egoism emphasizing being selfish by choice, individual ethical egoism having as argument that everyone ought to serve my best interest, and lastly universal ethical egoism supporting the view that everyone ought to act according to his or her own self-interest (Pojman, 1995). Only the last two are considered as ethical theories.

The morally right action for an ethical egoist is to do the action that will bring the greatest good for him in the long run. They may again differ about the determination of this good. This may be pleasure, happiness, perfection, power or self-realization (Frankena, 1974). Ethical egoism is different than the psychological egoism at the point that ethical egoism is normative and tells how we should behave but psychological egoism tells how people behave (Pojman, 1998). Plato and Aristotle gave the first form of the ethical egoism. But Epicures and his followers, like Cicero, did the real development. In these writings, psychological and ethical egoism are combined, sometimes egoism and hedonism are linked together (Frankena, 1974). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in Leviathan gives the basis for an ethical egoism and proposes a minimal morality that everybody should obey, in order to make life easier: The Laws of Nature. Aktan, Coskun Can. Siyasal Yozlasman n nlenmesine Ynelik zm nerileri. Yeni Trkiye 14 (1997): 1045-1059. Augustine, Norman. Etik Davran slar n rnlerini Toplamak. Executive Excellence 29 (1999): 14. Bonevac, Daniel. Todays Moral Issues. Mayfield Publishing Co., 1999. Burke, Frances. Ethical Decision-Making: Global Concerns, Frameworks and Approaches. Public Personnel Management 28 (1999): 529-540. De George, Richard T., Business Ethics. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1990. Harwood, Sterling. Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism. In Moral Philosophy: A Reader. ed. Lois P. Pojman, 179-192, Hackett 1998. Frankena, William K., et al., ed. Introductory Readings in Ethics. Prentice Hall, 1974. Frankena, William. A Reconciliation of Ethical Theories. In Moral Philosophy: A Reader. ed. Louis P. Pojman, 239-246, Hackett 1998.

Frederick, William, C., et al. ed, Business Ethics: Research Issues and Empirical Studies, Jai Press Inc, 1990. Inlow, Gail M. Values in Transition, a Handbook. John Wiley&Sons Inc. 1972. Lehrer, Keith, ed. Analysis and Metaphysics. Reidel Publishing Co., 1975. Leys, Wayne A.R. Ethics for Policy Decisions. Prentice-Hall, 1964. Nielsen, Kai. Ethics Without Religion. In Moral Philosophy: A Reader. ed.Louis P. Pojman, 327-336, Hackett 1998. Pojman, Louis P. ed. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995. Pojman, Louis P. ed. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Hackett Publishing Company, 1998. Russell, Bertrand.A Free Mans Worship. In Moral Philosophy: A Reader. ed.Louis P. Pojman, 313-317, Hackett 1998. Tepe, Harun. Etik ve Metaetik. Trkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 1992. Toffler, Barbara Ley. Thought Choices. John Wiley & Sons, 1986.