PHI 1010 ETHICS NOTES

Dr. Anthony M. Musonda

For internal Circulation only

Introduction

To many people, ethics has come to mean the definition of particular conduct as
right and wrong within a profession. For instance, we speak of the professional
ethics of lawyers, medical doctors or university lecturers to mean the code or set
of principles which dictates appropriate conduct for the named professionals in
relation to one other and to their clients. In fact, most professions have their
own set of ethical standards or codes of ethics.

Even though professional ethics typically restricts attention to areas of conduct

relevant to the profession, these can be fairly inclusive and enter into what we
might consider to be the private life of the individual. For instance, lecturers are
judged harshly if they become intimately involved with their students, as are
medical doctors if they engage in romantic relationships with their patients.

We are very much aware of how lecturers’ private conduct can affect their
careers in the teaching profession. When lecturers are embroiled in
controversial love affairs with their students or are exposed as abusers, these
revelations have definite effects on their careers. It is clear that in some
profession, anyway, typically those involving public trust such as politics,
education and the clergy – there is a thin line between one’s private life and
one’s public life.

Thus, whereas professional ethics typically restricts attention to areas of

conduct relevant to the profession, the same cannot be said to be the case with
ethics which refers to the study of what broadly constitutes right or wrong
conduct with regard to the sum of a person’s actions in every sphere of the
person’s life that includes both a person’s public and private life.

If ethics refers to the study right or wrong conduct in every sphere of the
person’s life, that is inclusive of the person’s private sphere, could this then be
taken to mean that ethics is about what my feelings, my religion, law, society or
science tell me is right or wrong? Therefore, in order to understand what ethics
is, there is need to be clear from the outset about what ethics is not.
What Ethics is not
To understand what ethics is, we find out what it is not.
1
1. There are those that say that ethics has to do with what my feelings tell
me is right or wrong. Feelings provide important information for our
ethical choices. Feelings are part of the attitude we have which is the
relatively enduring organization of beliefs, feelings and behavioural
tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups of events or
symbols. For example I know or believe (cognitive component) that
indiscriminate and unprotected sex can lead to HIV/ AIDS. But then,
whether I feel strongly (affective component) about avoiding
indiscriminate and unprotected sex will determine the choice I make
about whether or not to engage in indiscriminate or unprotected sex.
Some people have rightly developed moral habits that make them feel
bad when they do something wrong. But then many people feel good
even though they are doing something wrong. And often, our feelings tell
us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard. Our feelings may
sometimes turn us away from doing what is right. Therefore ethics is not
the same as feelings.
2. There are others who identify ethics with religious beliefs. Some theists
say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of
‘good’ is nothing other than ‘what God approves’. The ancient Greek
thinker, Plato, refuted a similar claim by arguing that if the gods approve
of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case
it cannot be the gods’ approval that makes them good. Traditionally, the
more important link between religion and ethics was that religion was
thought to provide a reason for doing what is right, the reason being that
those who are virtuous will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while the
rest roast in hell. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but
sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face. For
instance, the Christian Bible does not address ethical problems of
genetically modified foods. Besides, not all people are religious, but
ethics applies to everyone. Ethics applies as much to the behaviour of the
atheist as to that of the devout religious. Yet if ethics were confined to
religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. Therefore,
ethics is not religion.
3. There are yet others who say being ethical is doing what the law requires.
Undoubtedly, ethics is closely related to law, and some people equate the
two. Many laws are instituted to promote well-being, resolve conflicts of
interest and promote social harmony, just as morality and ethics does. But
ethics may judge that some laws are immoral without denying that they
are valid laws. For example, laws may permit slavery (i.e. American pre-

2
 civil war slavery laws), spousal abuse, racial discrimination or sexual
discrimination, but these are immoral or unethical practices. Besides, you
cannot have a law against every social malady. Some aspects of
morality/ethics are not covered by law. For instance, although it is
generally agreed that lying is usually immoral, there is no general law
against it (except under special conditions such as committing perjury or
falsifying official documents). Morality or ethics is more comprehensive
than law. Finally law differs from morality in that there are physical and
financial sanctions (e.g., imprisonment and fines) enforcing the law but
only the sanction of conscience and reputation enforcing morality.
Therefore, being ethical is not the same as following the law.
4. Still, there are many others who think being ethical is doing what society
approves of as reflected in its customary acceptable standards of conduct.
For example, if I say that slavery is wrong, then I am really only saying
that my society approves of slavery, and when the slave owners from the
other society (e.g. American pre-civil war society) say that slavery is
right, they are only saying that their society approves of it. So, why
argue? Obviously, we could both be speaking the truth. What is being
said here is that ethics is always relative to a particular society. But then it
is possible that customary acceptable standards of conduct in society
could turn away from what is ethical. An entire society could be
morally/ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany or American pre-civil war
society are good examples of morally corrupt societies. Moreover, if
being ethical were doing "whatever society approves of as reflecting
customary acceptable standards of conduct in that society," then to find
out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society approves of.
To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have
to take a survey of Zambian society and then conform my beliefs to
whatever society approves of. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical
issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many
issues within any given society makes it impossible to equate ethics with
whatever society approves of. For instance, some people approve of
abortion but many others do not approve of it within the same Zambia
society. In this case, if being ethical were doing whatever society
approves of, one would have to find agreement on issues which does not
at all exist. Therefore, ethics is not doing what society approves of given
the lack of consensus on this.
5. Finally, there are others who think ethics is doing what science tells us is
right of wrong. Social and natural science can indeed provide important

3
data to help us make better choices. But science alone does not tell us
what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what
humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to
act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically
possible may not be ethical to do it. The fact that 5G wireless mobile
technology, which is a human creation within a typically Western culture,
can deliver enhanced broadband for cell phones, superfast and reliable
communication, and machine-to-machine communication, it may not be
ethical to adopt it. There are already concerns that 5G could have
negative effects on the environment because of its high energy
consumption and long-term climate change effects. Therefore, ethics is
not science.
Now, if ethics is not about what our feelings, religion, law, accepted
social practice, or science tell us is right or wrong, what then is ethics?
How does ethics differ from morality? In addition, on what basis do we
decide that something is right or wrong from the point of view of ethics?
MORALITY, VALUES, AND ETHICS.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy also called moral philosophy. But then,
what is philosophy? The English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead
defined philosophy as a critical attitude of mind towards beliefs that are
ignorantly entertained or held by individuals or a group of people.
Philosophy is an enterprise that begins in awe or wonder at the marvels
and mysteries of the universe. It is an enterprise that pursues a rational
investigation of the marvels and mysteries of the universe with a view to
promote understanding and a comprehensive or broad view of things. To
understand this better, we look at the etymology of the word.

The word philosophy comes from the two Greek words philo – love and
sophia – wisdom. Wisdom is distinguished from knowledge, a mere
possession of facts which can be had by anyone with a good memory,
dedication and a certain measure of natural intelligence. Wisdom, on the
other hand, consists of insight or an in-view or deeper view of things,
soundness of perspective, and balance and proportion in judgment.
The ancient Greek thinker, Socrates, who has become a symbol of
practical philosophy once said “the unexamined life is not worth living”.
What Socrates meant by this was that a full life must include an
examination of the reasons why we believe, think and live the way we do.

4
Philosophy leaves no facet of life untouched by its inquiry. It questions
everything that is taken for granted. In doing so, philosophy aims for a
clear, critical, comprehensive conception of reality through rational or
logical arguments. Philosophers clarify concepts, they analyse and test
propositions or beliefs about matters of fact and matters of right or
wrong, good or bad, as well as construct arguments to justify them.

Philosophy is closely allied with scientific reasoning, in that both build

hypotheses and look for evidence to test those hypotheses with the hope
of coming closer to the truth. However, scientific experiments take place
in laboratories and have testing procedure through which to record
objective or empirically verifiable results.

The laboratory of the philosopher is the domain of ideas. It takes place in

the mind, where imaginative thought experiments take place. It takes
place in the study room where ideas are written down and examined. It
also takes place wherever conversation or debate about perennial
questions takes place, where thesis and counterexample and counter
thesis are considered.

How do we apply this to ethics? What is ethics? We define ethics as a

branch of philosophy that deals with what we ought to do or how we
should conduct ourselves to live the good life defined as the life of
happiness. Ethics deals with concepts of “right” and “wrong” conduct.

In order to have a better understanding of ethics, we must first clarify

what we mean by the words ethics and morality. One problem in defining
our subject matter is that very often morality and ethics are used
interchangeably. This makes sense because they both come from similar
root meanings. The terms ethics and morality come from the Greek and
the Latin languages, respectively (moralis and ethikos), deriving their
meaning from the idea of custom. Although philosophers sometimes use
these words interchangeably, many philosophers distinguish between
them.

The word morality originates from the Latin word moralis, which means
“traditional customs or proper behaviour.” Therefore, fundamentally,
morality refers to a set of rules defining what is considered to be right or
wrong. These rules are defined by (although not typically written down)
and accepted by a group or society for the regulation of group life. The
5
group or society can include peers, educators, religion, media, and the
family unit. If someone within the group or society breaks one of the
rules, then they are typically considered to have been “bad” or
“immoral.”

Values, on the other hand, are the evaluative standards we use for
deciding what is right and what is wrong, what is good and bad. Values
are what an individual believes to be worth having, getting or doing
because they belong to anything that is necessary for, or a contribution
to, some living being or beings thriving, flourishing, fulfilment, or well-
being. As such, morals are values that an individual attributes to a system
of beliefs that assist the individual in defining right from wrong or good
from bad.

Values and morality are similar, although values merely indicate relative
importance, whereas morality prescribes or proscribes behaviour. The
value of honesty is conceptually distinct from the moral rule against
lying. Lying is generally considered to be something morality requires us
to refrain from. This is unlike the character trait or moral quality of
honesty that morality generally requires us to have and demonstrate in
our conduct.

Individual values form value systems. All people prioritize certain things
they consider important in life. Behaviour is generally consistent with
values. For instance, some individuals may believe that financial success
is more important than family or health. In this case, we assume their
behaviour will reflect the importance of that value and that these persons
will be workaholics, spending more time at work than with family and
endangering their health with long hours of stress, and lack of exercise.

Ethics, which has as its core the Greek word ethos which refers to the
“moral character of an individual.” The Greeks believed that ethos
included an emphasis on an individual’s character as well as including the
citizen as a component of a greater community. At the core, this seems an
easy beginning; that ethics begins with the individual (Figure 1.1).
Ethics Versus Morals
Morals Ethics
Derived from Latin word moralis, Derived from the Greek word, ethos,
meaning “traditional customs” meaning “moral character”

6
 Typically associated with Typically refers to professional practices
personal behaviour and behaviour
Customs or manners practiced in Conveys sense of stability/permanence
any given community or culture
May be different from culture to An absolute standard of behaviour
culture
May change as acceptable social Standard is universal and immutable (not
behaviour as the culture(s) change subject to change)

Figure 1.1 Greek cardinal virtues. (Courtesy of Ellie Blazer. Adapted from
Dreisbach, C. 2009. Ethics in criminal justice, New York: McGraw-Hill.)

ETHICAL SUBDIVISIONS
The study of ethics contains its own subdivisions.

Ethical Subdivisions

ETHICS

NORMATIVE META-ETHICS
ETHICS

7
CONCEPTUAL LOGICAL

ETHICAL THEORY APPLIED ETHICS INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION

The key divisions in the study of ethics are:
(1) Normative Ethics (ethical theory),
Sociologically speaking, normative comes from the word "norm." In a
philosophical context, the word norm usually means standard, rule, or
principle, as opposed to what is "normal" for people to do, that is,
what they actually do. Normative ethics is concerned with establishing
moral standards or principles (that is, practical action guides) by
which we prescribe and judge how people should act.

The main aim of normative ethics is to construct ethical theories and

to establish on rationally justifiable grounds ethical standards or
principles to guide human action in terms of how individuals ought to
conduct themselves. Barbara Mackinnon (2009: 9) defines an ethical
theory as a systematic exposition of a general view about what is the
nature and the basis of right versus wrong or good versus bad.

An ethical theory provides moral rules or norms for judging acts to be

right or wrong and attempts to give a justification for these norms.
These can be used to decide in particular cases what action should be
chosen and carried out. This is illustrated in the following diagram:

Ethical Theory

Ethical Principle

8
 Ethical Judgment

We can think of the diagram as a ladder. In practice, we can start at

the top of the ladder or right at the very bottom.

At the top, at the level of theory, we can start by clarifying for

ourselves what we think are basic ethical values. We then move
downward to the level of ethical principles generated from the theory.
The next step is to apply these principles to concrete cases.

We can also start at the bottom of the ladder, facing a particular

ethical choice or dilemma. We can work our way back up the ladder,
thinking through the principles and theories that implicitly guide our
concrete decisions. Ultimately and ideally, we come to a basic
justification, or the elements of what would be an ethical theory.

If we look at the actual practice of thinking people as they develop

their ethical views over time, the movement is probably in both
directions. We use concrete cases to reform our basic ethical views,
and we use the basic ethical views to throw light on concrete cases.

We do not consciously think of ethical theories, but we use them to

make judgments. For instance, we might say that a person who
consumes alcohol excessively and neglects their children has
committed an immoral act. That would be a moral or ethical judgment.
An ethical judgment is a judgment of ethical or unethical, right or
wrong moral conduct. Consider that the moral or ethical judgment in
any discussion is only the tip of a pyramid. If forced to defend our
judgment, we would probably come up with some norms of conduct
that underlie the judgment.

Moral rules or norms of conduct in this case might be:

“Children should be looked after.”
“One should not drink to excess.”
“Parents should be good role models for their children.”

9
But these moral rules are not the final argument. How would you
answer if someone forced you to defend the moral rules by asking
“Why?” For instance, “Why should children be looked after?”

In answering the “why” question, one eventually comes to some form

of ethical theory. For instance, we might answer, “Because it benefits
society if all parents watched out for their children.” This would be a
utilitarian ethical theory. Utilitarianism defines a morally right
action as one that produces at least as much benefit or good for all
people affected by the action as any alternative action that could be
performed. From this definition, we derive the ethical principle of
utility according to which we are always to act so as to produce the
greatest good for the greatest number of people that are affected by
our own actions.

We might have answered the question, “Because every parent’s duty

or obligation is to take care of their children.” This is deontological or
duty-based ethical theory. This theory defines the right action as one
whose reason we give would be that which any other person in a
relevantly similar situation to ours would give for acting the way they
act, that is a reason that is universalizable. In other words, this theory
defines the right action to be one that is done from good will or from
good intentions to which we have a duty to even if it results in bad
consequences. From this we derive the ethical principle of respect
for persons according to which we are always to act so as to treat
human beings as rational beings, whether in our own persons or in
the person of others, always as ends in themselves and never merely
as a means. Applying that principle to situations allows us to discern
our duties, and thus, how we are to act.

Furthermore, we might have answered the question with the response

that, “parents should be good role models for their children”. This is
virtue-based ethical theory. This theory defines the right action to be
one that a virtuous person (or good parent here) would
characteristically do in the circumstances. The focus of virtue ethics
comes to be on character. A person of good character or the
disposition to do good would characteristically do the right thing.

In this scheme of things, an ethical judgment is a judgment of ethical

or unethical conduct. This is distinguished from a descriptive
10
 judgment which based on facts. For instance, the descriptive judgment
that “capital punishment acts as a deterrent” is based on facts about
whether capital punishment is able to bring about a drop in capital
crime.

An ethical judgment is a species of an evaluative judgment that places

a positive value on, or approves of, the practice of capital punishment
e.g. “capital punishment is justifiable (or unjustifiable)”. A normative
judgment is an evaluative judgment like the above (that capital
punishment is justifiable) which relies on norms or standards about,
say, the value of human life. That is, whether or not capital
punishment is able to promote respect for human life.

(2) Meta-ethics (Meaning “after” or “beyond” ethics)

A so-called second-order activity because it investigates the concepts

and methods of normative ethics.

There are two main types of meta-ethical investigations:

CONCEPTUAL INVESTIGATION – involves investigating the
meaning of ethical terms (e.g. what does “right,” “wrong,”
“permissible” mean?).

Right (permissible) Wrong

(not permissible)

Obligatory Optional

Neutral Supererogatory

The most common distinction may be the classification of actions as

right and wrong, but the term “right” is ambiguous. Sometimes it
means "obligatory" (as in "the right act"), but sometimes it means
permissible (as in "a right act" or "It's all right to do that").

Usually, philosophers define right as permissible, including in that

category what is obligatory:

11
i. A right act is an act that is permissible for you to do. It may be
either
(a) optional, or
(b) obligatory.

a. An optional act is an act that is neither obligatory nor wrong to do.

It is not your duty to do it, nor is it your duty not to do it. Neither
doing it nor not doing it would be wrong.

b. An obligatory act is one that morality requires you to do; it is not

permissible for you to refrain from doing it.

ii. A wrong act is an act you have an obligation, or a duty to refrain

from doing. It is an act you ought not to do; it is not permissible to
do it.

Let us briefly illustrate these concepts.

The act of lying is generally seen as wrong (prohibited), whereas

telling the truth is generally seen as obligatory. But some acts do not
seem either obligatory or wrong.

Whether you take a course in art history or English literature or

whether you write a letter with a pencil or pen seem morally neutral.
Either is permissible. Whether you listen to pop music or classical
music is not usually considered morally significant. Listening to both
is allowed, and neither is obligatory.

Whether you marry or remain single is of great moral significance (it

is, after all, an important decision about how to live your life). The
decision you reach, however, is usually considered morally neutral or
optional. Under most circumstances, to marry (or not to marry) is
considered neither obligatory nor wrong, but permissible.

Within the range of permissible acts is the notion of supererogatory

or highly altruistic acts. These acts are neither required nor obligatory,
but they exceed what morality requires, going "beyond the call of

12
duty." You may be obliged to give a donation to help people in dire
need, but you are probably not obliged to sell your car, let alone
become destitute, in order to help them.

LOGICAL INVESTIGATION - or the logic of moral reasoning

involves a critical study of how ethical statements or judgments can be
verified. Here the philosopher’s task is to show,

(a) how moral beliefs can be established as true or false and

(b) on what grounds we can know they are true or false.

Normative ethics has two main branches, the so-called general

normative ethics (also called ethical theory) and Applied Ethics that is
also called practical ethics.

Applied Ethics (also called Practical Ethics)

In general normative ethics or ethical theory philosophers attempt to

formulate the basic ethical principles. Applied ethics provides us with
specific rules that tell us concretely what we should do in specific
issue areas of medical and biological practice, the environment,
development, politics and so on and so forth that raise controversial
ethical issues.

We define an ethical issue as

(a) a situation that has (or can have) good or bad effects on humans
and
other living things, as well as the natural environment.

(b) a situation with bad effects can be prevented, mitigated or changed

by human action.

However, there is need for a word of explanation to clarify matters.

An ethical issue is not only an ethical issue. It can also have other
dimensions. Water pollution can be not only an ethical issue. It can
also be an engineering issue, a chemical issue and an economic issue.

Let us identify ethical issues within specific issue areas of medical and
biological practice, the environment, development and public service.
13
1. Bioethics – it is that branch of applied ethics which investigates
ethical issues specifically arising from medical and biological
practice. Among these issues are the following: The question of the
distribution of treatment – whether all patients have the same right
to treatment, even though it is very expensive and they do not the
money to pay for it. For instance, the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic placed an extraordinary demand on health
systems and healthcare providers all over the world. The pandemic
presented a number of unprecedented challenging ethical issues.
Across the globe, hospitals were being challenged by a large
number of patients presenting to the emergency room for
treatment, creating scarcities of critical care resources. The great
demand for critical care services in several areas of the world, such
as the northern region of Italy and New York, exceeded supply.
Intensive care doctors faced challenging decisions about who
should receive a ventilator or not, knowing the fact that those who
were not admitted to the intensive care units would very likely die.
Physicians had to consider the prioritization of patients who were
most likely to survive over those with remote chances; The sphere
of authority of the patient, the physician and others – whether
parents have the right to reject a certain life-saving treatment for
their child or whether the physician is entitled to save the child
although the parents do not agree with his treatment because it is
their religious beliefs. For instance, some members of the
Jehovah’s witness who believe the Bible prohibits ingesting blood
do not allow blood transfusions even if it is the only method to
save the life of the child; The issue of abortion – whether
physicians are entitled or even obliged to abort if a woman wants
it; Euthanasia – when the physician is entitled to stop medical
treatment and let a person die, even though they have the means to
keep a person alive who is in a deep coma and will probably never
wake up again; Issues of the so-called in vitro fertilization –
whether it is morally justified to take an ovum (an egg cell) from
one woman, sperm from a man, fertilize this egg in a laboratory
and implant the fertilized ovum into this or even another
(surrogate) woman and many other issues.

2. Business Ethics – a branch of applied ethics which tries to solve

problems created by business practices, for instance: The social
14
responsibility of companies – whether companies are responsible for
possible negative effects of their products on their customers and other
people. For instance, companies that externalize the environmental
costs of the manufacturing processes to consumers through the use of
plastics as packaging materials for their products. The extent and limit
of company loyalty – whether an employee of a company is expected
to remain loyal to it when he is offered money by another company to
disclose information that may be of advantage to the other company
and may disadvantage the company he works for.

3. Environmental ethics – a branch of applied ethics which addresses

ethical issues that arise from the relationships humans have with the
natural environment. The intrinsic value of the natural environment –
whether humans should continue to engage in commercial logging in a
manner that depletes forests for the sake of the human consumption
without taking into account the value forests have in and of
themselves. Alternative technology to non-renewable energy sources
– whether we should continue to make petrol powered motor vehicles,
depleting fossil fuel resources while technology exists to create zero
emission electrical vehicles. Environmental obligations of current
generations to future generations – whether the current generation of
human beings have environmental obligations to future generations.
Threats to bio-diversity – whether it is right for humans to knowingly
cause the extinction of species for the convenience of humanity whilst
negatively affecting the bio-diversity (diversity of flora and fauna) of
the natural environment that keeps the natural environment in
equilibrium.
4. Development ethics – a branch of applied ethics that consists of a
critique of the existing trajectory of development, a reflection on both
the general direction in which a society should develop and the
abstract ethical principles that can guide a choice of these goals. It
reflects on both the ends and the means of economic development.

It typically takes a normative stance, asking and answering questions

about the nature of ethically desirable development and what ethics
means for achieving development, and discusses various ethical
dilemmas that the practice of development has led to.

Conceptions of development – what should count as (good)

development; whether one should continue to speak of “development”
15
instead of, for example, “progress,” “transformation,” “liberation,” or
“post-development alternatives to development”. Goals, strategies
and principles of development – what basic economic, political, and
cultural goals and strategies should a region, nation, or community
pursue, and what principles should inform their selection. Moral
issues of development policy and practice – what moral issues emerge
in development policy-making and practice, and how they should be
resolved. Development agents – who (or what institutions) should
bear responsibility for bringing about development – a nation’s
government, civil society, or the market. Obligations of developed
world, international organisations and NGOs – what role – if any –
should affluent states, international institutions, and nongovernmental
associations and individuals have in the self-development of poor
countries; what the role of citizens is. Impediments to good
development & globalisation – what the most serious local, national,
and international impediments to good development are; how
“globalization” is to be understood, and what moral assessments can
be given of its promises and risks.

5. Political philosophy has been characterised to be a branch of

applied ethics. Ethics asks the question about what kind of life is the
good life of the individual human being. Recognising that a human
being is by nature a political or social animal requiring beings of like
nature to fulfil himself, political philosophy follows this up with the
question as to the kind of life that is proper for a person amongst
people.

S.S. Wolin in his book Politics and Vision (1960: 4) wrote that one of
the essential qualities of what is political, and one that has powerfully
shaped the view of political theorists about their subject-matter, is its
relationship to what is “public”. The Roman writer, lawyer and states-
man, Cicero, had this in mind when he called the commonwealth a res
publica, a “public thing” or the “property of a people.”

Of all the authoritative institutions in society, Wolin observed, the

political arrangement has been singled out as uniquely concerned with
what is “common” to the whole community. Certain functions, such as
national defence, internal order, the dispensing of justice, and
economic regulation, have been declared the primary responsibility of
16
 political institutions, largely on the grounds that the interests and ends
served by these functions were beneficial to all members of the public.

Therefore, a key question of political philosophy is that of how best

society should be organised– political philosophy asks questions about
the ideals, values and principles by which our society or collective life
– our political institutions, most importantly the state, and our social
practices, such as our economic system and our pattern of family life –
should best be organized for citizens to enjoy good or happy lives.
Justification for the existence and legitimacy of the state – what
justifies the existence of a coercive state and the obligation to obey its
laws. Human nature and form of the state – what form the state should
take bearing in mind assumptions about the nature of human beings.
Authority of the state and limitations to it – whether authority of the
state should be absolute or constitutionally limited. Democratic
control of the state – whether the state should be democratically
controlled, and if so by what means. Individual liberties – whether
there are any areas of individual freedom or privacy that the state must
never invade on any pretext. State Neutrality – whether there are any
subjects such as religious doctrine, sexual orientation or type of family
life on which the state must adopt a strictly neutral posture. Justice –
how society’s material benefits and burdens be shared among its
members. Principles of Justice – what criteria is deemed justifiable for
society’s institutions in distributing material benefits and burdens in
ways that are fair and just.

Relationship between Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory

How are ethical theory and applied ethics related? They are closely
related, we wish to respond. In the words of the 18th century German
thinker, Immanuel Kant “practice without theory is blind, but theory
without practice is sterile”. Ethical theory, defined as a systematic
exposition of the nature and basis of the good life and what it requires of
us or how we ought to live to achieve the good life, helps inform
discussions about say abortion, punishment, sexual morality and

17
euthanasia and thereby improve the quality of discussions. More
intellectual light and less emotional heat is the likely outcome where
emotional shouting matches are replaced by rationally justifiable or
defensible arguments.

Ethical theory clarifies relevant concepts, constructs and evaluates

arguments, and guides us in living morally good lives. It is important that
the educated person is able to discuss situations with precision and
subtlety.

Unlike feelings, laws and social norms that can turn away from what is
ethical, the standards ethics uses are adequate standards because they are
supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

Therefore, we define ethics as 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. Ethical
standards relate to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom
from injury, and the right to privacy. They also impose reasonable
obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and
fraud. In addition, some ethical standards that are conceived in terms of
benefits to society have a material core: promoting human (and possibly
animal) flourishing and alleviating suffering. Furthermore, there are those
that enjoin fairness and demand justice and enjoin virtues of honesty,
compassion, and loyalty.

SOURCES OF ETHICAL STANDARDS

We have established that ethics is not based on feelings, religion, law,

accepted social practice, or science. Therefore, following Velasquez and
Andre (1987), we consider ethics to be well-founded standards of right
and wrong prescribing what humans ought to do usually in terms of
rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. This
being the case, it becomes important to interrogate sources of these
ethical standards.

For those arguing that ethical decision-making should be made through

consideration of one’s duties and obligations along with other
individual’s rights, the source of ethical standards is in the belief in moral
laws established by God and interpreted in religious tradition, Plato’s
18
forms of the Good that are independent of what any particular society
happens to sanction, the natural law theory that finds its precedent in the
Stoics of ancient Greece and is the source of natural rights theory, the
Kantian Categorical Imperative that grounds morality in the capacity of
individuals to be rational and also asserts there are inviolable moral laws
in society.

MORAL LAWS ESTABLISHED BY GOD

Let us take the ethical judgment “it is bad to lie” why is lying bad? One
answer would be “because it is morally wrong; it violates a moral law,
and it is our duty to obey moral laws.” We may still ask about what is the
source of these moral laws. Probably the most widely held view is the
belief in moral laws established by God and interpreted in a religious
tradition.

The 10 commandments is an example. They include prohibitions on

killing, stealing, bearing false witness, and coveting the property of others
(Exodus 20: 1-17). These moral laws hold for all people, at all times, and
with no exceptions (absolute). Their value is independent of what an
individual thinks or likes, or what any particular society happens to
sanction. Their value is grounded in some reality outside humanity over
and above the individual and society. That is, their value is objective.

The justification of moral laws such as the 10 commandments rests

directly on the authority of God, or indirectly on the authority of a Church
through authoritative interpretations of God’s will by religious leaders, or
the personal interpretation by an individual through private faith. The
Bible or the Koran may be directly appealed to as the authority.

PLATO’S THEORY OF FORMS.

Another conception of absolute values was developed by Plato.

According to Plato, there is fundamentally one and only one good life for
all to lead.

Goodness resembles mathematical truth that two plus two equals four. It
is a truth which is absolute; it exists whether any one likes such a fact or
not, or even whether one knows mathematics or not. It is not dependent
upon mankind’s opinions about the nature of maths or the world.
19
Likewise, goodness exists independently of mankind and remains to be
discovered if people can be properly trained. Plato believed that people
must be instructed in two different ways. They must develop, on the one
hand, their mental powers through the study of disciplines such as
mathematics, and on the other, they must develop virtuous habits of
behaviour. Only through this rigorous training of character and the mind
will people use their reason to discover the nature of the good life and to
take control over their desires with the help of will power that will
ultimately enable them to do what is right in their lives.

When he asserts that goodness exists independently of mankind, Plato is

arguing for the objectivity of the morally good life as opposed to
philosophies which contend that the morally good life is a ‘matter of
opinion’ or personal ‘preference’.

Plato’s view can be roughly summarised as saying that a certain course of

action is right or wrong absolutely and independently of anyone’s
opinion. Thus the Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews in gas chambers
were absolutely wrong in their behaviour; it was not that we, with
differing ethical standards, merely thought them to be wrong – but more
than that, we were right in so thinking, for they were wrong. The
killing of innocent people is an absolutely objective moral wrong.

Platonism had a tremendous impact upon religious philosophy for most

theologians assumed that moral laws such as ‘thou shall not commit
murder’ were absolute and objective in the Platonic sense. However there
is a fundamental difference between Platonism and religious philosophy
which should not be overlooked.

Plato himself believed that goodness was anterior to what the gods
approved of, and that the gods were good if and only if they acted in
accordance with the standard of moral goodness. This is distinct from the
Judeo-Christian or Islamic view, for instance, that God creates goodness.

NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY

20
Christian theologians such as Thomas of Aquinas and Augustine of
Hippo have developed a natural law theory of absolute values that finds
its precedent in the Stoics of ancient Greece.

According to this view, God endowed each creature with certain intrinsic
tendencies (natural laws), according to which it is supposed to act. These
laws can be discovered by the use of reason alone, thereby enabling
human beings to know the will of God without turning to special
revelation.

According to the English philosopher John Locke, natural law mandates

that “no human being ought to harm another human being’s life, health
liberty and property.” Natural law is the source of the absolute natural
rights human beings have. Natural rights are natural insofar as they are
not invented or created by governments. They are given to us by God and
are thus anterior to the establishment of government.

John Locke’s influence is reflected in the United States Declaration of

Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson which recognises three
foundational rights as expressed in the following statement: “We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights are
inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another
person, such as by selling myself into slavery. Secondly, these rights are
the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. As such,
they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

A further conception of absolute values was developed by Immanuel

Kant. He based his idea of absolute values on man’s rationale nature. As
rational beings, we cannot make exceptions for ourselves when we make
moral judgments. If I claim that my act is right, I mean that it would be
right for anyone and everyone in relevantly similar situations as mine. For
instance, if it is right for me to break a promise when it is to my personal
advantage, it must be right for anyone to do so. I must be willing to
generalize my act and say that breaking a promise when it is to anyone’s
advantage is a universal principle. But then my reason tells me that such a
universal principle is inconsistent with itself; if everyone acted in terms
21
of it, promises would be meaningless, and the whole system of promise
keeping would break down. Therefore, Kant’s conclusion is that reason
itself sanctions certain universal moral principles (absolute values) and
that the good person is one who acts from a sense of duty to such
principles. People are good if they have a good will or motives (often
driven by duty).

There are, Kant claims, three main kinds of reasons for doing things: I
may do something because I believe it will give me pleasure, or because I
think it is in my self-interest, or because I believe it is the morally right
thing to do (which Kant calls acting “from duty”). But the person who
does things for the sake of pleasure or self-interest, he argues, does not
necessarily have a morally good will. On the other hand, the person who
does things because he believes it is morally right to do them, does have a
morally good will. The person with a morally good will, then is the
person who does what he does because he believes it is the morally right
thing to do, But what does it mean to say that one believes it is morally
right to do something?

Kant answers this question by pointing out that when I believe it is

morally right to do something, I look up to that kind of behaviour as if it
is required by a law that everyone ought to follow. In other words, to
believe an action is morally right, is to see it as something that everyone
is required to do. A person has a morally good will, then, when the
person does what he does because he believes it is what everyone ought
to do. Or, to express the point in terms of “reasons”: A person has a
morally good will when he acts on those reasons (or “maxims”) for
doing something that he believes everyone ought to act on.

Kant believes, then, that there is one fundamental moral principle, which
he calls the “categorical imperative.” According to the first formulation
of the categorical imperative, Kant stated, “act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law. This is the principle that it is morally right for me to do
something only if it is something that I am willing to have everyone do.

In Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, he proposes

that moral law cannot be based on a particular purpose/end but can be
based on the absolute value of humanity. For Kant, people have intrinsic
value; therefore, one should respect others as well as their basic dignity.
22
Other people should not be disrespected in pursuit of personal goals
(Norman 1983, 121). In the second formulation of the categorical
imperative, Kant stated, “Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never simply as a means but as an end.” Kant believed that justice
required upholding human rights for all because people are human,
capable of reason, and worthy of respect (Sandel 2009, 123). He believed
that from the categorical imperative we can derive our moral duties to
ourselves and others.

Kant based his idea of morality reason alone and claimed that this method
led him to the categorical imperative as the foundational principle of
ethics. Kant held that a person should choose for himself the moral
principles that he will follow. Kant called this ability to choose for
oneself “autonomy of the will.” He contrasted this with heteronomy.
Heteronomy is allowing someone/something else to decide the moral
principles one will follow.

He rejected both divine command theories of ethics as well as utilitarian

theories. The trouble with divine command theories is that they say that
the Church or the Bible should decide for us what moral laws we will
follow. Utilitarian theories are worse. Utilitarian theories say that our
desires for pleasure or happiness should decide what is right or wrong for
us. So, both divine command theories and utilitarian theories are
heteronomous. Both hand over morality to something outside our own
decision-making ability.

CONTRACTARIANISM

The variety of theories going by the name of contractarianism have in

common the notion of a contract. In some cases, a contract forms the
basis of a political state. In others, it is used to determine what justice
requires. And in others, it forms the basis of morality itself.

One of the earliest versions of contractarianism is that given in the

writing of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was a radical individualist;
accordingly, he concluded that individuals are priori to society. Individual
are self-interested; that is, they seek to fulfil their interests and desires
and above all seek self-preservation.

23
They exist in a “state of nature,” however, where they are roughly equal
to one another and “roughly similar in terms of strength and mental
ability.” Conflict arises in cases where separate individuals seek the same
thing. One can try to gain it over the other through force. However,
because they are similar in strength or wiles, this will be a problem. The
individuals competing will thereby become enemies. Overall, then, the
state of nature will be one of war, of all against all. As Hobbes describes
it, they will each live “in continual fear and danger of violent death and
the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

The solution is peace, in which one gives up so much liberty “as against
other men, as he would allow other men against himself.” Hobbes says
that such is a contract [a concept borrowed from English contract law], an
implicit agreement to give up certain things in order to better secure one’s
own self-interest. Thus individuals will agree to certain societal rules that
would be in everyone’s best interest to accept and obey.

In order to secure this peace and order and to see that these rules are
obeyed, Hobbes also believed that an absolute sovereign was required.
Hobbes’ contractarianism is based on a desire of each to achieve his own
advantage while agreeing to social rules enforced by a sovereign; it is a
view of how society should function and thus both a political and moral
position.

The most important political social contract theorist in recent times

is John Rawls (1921 - 2002), who effectively resurrected social contract
theory in the second half of the 20th Century.
Rawls set out to discover an impartial way to decide what the best
principles for a just society were. He reached back several hundred years
to philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau who had
developed the idea of a social contract.

By the first half of the 20th century, most philosophers had dismissed the
social contract as a quaint myth. However, in the second half of the 20 th
century, Rawls revived the social contract concept of people agreeing to
what constitutes a just society.

Rawls devised a hypothetical version of the social contract. Some have

called it a "thought experiment" (Rawls called it the "Original Position").
24
This was not a real gathering with real people, bargaining over an
agreement. Rather, it was an imaginary meeting held under strict
conditions that permitted individuals to deliberate only by using their
reason and logic. Their task was to evaluate principles of social justice
and choose the best ones. Their decision would be binding on their
society forever.

Rawls added a requirement to assure that the choice of social justice

principles would truly be impartial. The persons in this mental exercise
had to choose their justice principles under a "veil of ignorance." This
meant that these individuals would know nothing about their particular
positions in society. It was as if some force had plucked these people
from a society and caused them to experience severe amnesia.

Under the "veil of ignorance," these imaginary people would not know
their own age, sex, race, social class, religion, abilities, preferences, life
goals, or anything else about themselves. They would also be ignorant of
the society from which they came. This is because they would not know
who they would turn out to be in life.

Rawls argued that only under a "veil of ignorance" could human beings
reach a fair and impartial agreement (contract) as true equals not biased
by their place in society. They would have to rely only on the human
powers of reason to choose principles of social justice for their society.
Rawls set up his "thought experiment" with several given systems of
social justice principles. The task of the imaginary group members under
the "veil of ignorance" was to choose one system of principles for their
own society.

CONSEQUENTIALISM

Consequentialist Theories
According to consequentialism, correct moral conduct is
determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s consequences:

Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that

action are more favourable than unfavourable.

Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the

good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine
25
 whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad
consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is
morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is
morally improper. Consequentialist theories are sometimes
called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the
end result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18 th century by

philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by
appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long
lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of
consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of
actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated
than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist
theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are
relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

 Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that

action are more favourable than unfavourable only to the
agent performing the action.
 Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone except the
agent.
 Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone.

UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential ethical views.
It is a view about how we should evaluate actions that involve choices
people make. As a form of consequentialism, it rests on the idea that it is
the consequences of our actions that determine whether they are right or
wrong. In general, whatever action is being evaluated, we ought to choose
one that produces the best overall consequences.

Utilitarianism defines the right action as one that maximizes utility, that
is, the action that produces the largest amount of good as any alternative
action that could be performed. This definition of utilitarianism is often
referred to as the principle of utility. Utilitarianism appears to be a simple
theory because it consist of only one evaluative principle: do whatever
produces the best consequences. However, the theory is complex because
26
it does not specify the following: (a) what things are good and bad; and
(b) whose good (that is the good of which individuals or groups) we
should aim to maximise (Velasquez, 2012).

Although the main themes of utilitarianism were developed in the 18 th

century by several Scottish philosophers, its first explicit and systematic
formulation was by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

BENTHAM’S HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM

In answering the question as to what things are good, Bentham adopted
the view called hedonism. According to hedonism, the only thing that is
good in itself is some specific type of psychic state of satisfaction called
pleasure. Hedonists do not deny that many different kinds of things can
be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many other things, but
they see these as instrumental goods that are valuable only because they
play a causal role in producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure is an
intrinsic good, meaning that it is good in itself and not because it
produces some further valuable thing. Likewise, on the negative side,
lack of food, friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad because it
produces pain and suffering but pain and suffering are intrinsically bad,
that is, bad in themselves and not because they produce some further bad
thing.

Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the sole good and pain the
only evil. As Bentham put that, ‘nature has placed human beings under
two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain, it is for them alone to point out
what we ought to do as well as what we shall do.’ (MacKinnon, 2012:54).
An act is right if it either brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents
pain; and an act is wrong if it either brings about more pain than pleasure
or prevents pleasure from occurring.

Bentham went on to invent a scheme for measuring pleasure and pain that
he called the hedonistic calculus. According to Bentham, we ought to
consider only the quantity of pleasure or pain brought about by various
acts: how much pleasure or pain, to how many people, how intense it is,
how long-lasting, how fruitful and how likely the desired outcome will
occur. Adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act
and then comparing the scores enables us to decide which act to perform.

27
Bentham’s utilitarianism is appealing. Firstly, it is simple as there is only
one principle to apply; maximize pleasure and minimize suffering.
Secondly, it is commonsensical to think that morality really is about
ameliorating suffering and promoting benevolence. Lastly, it is scientific;
it makes quantitative measurements and applies the principle impartially.

However, Bentham’s philosophy may be too simplistic in that there are

other values than pleasure like being healthy, honest or having knowledge
that are thought by some people to be intrinsic goods. It also seems too
complicated in that the calculus is encumbered with too many variables
and has problems assigning scores to variables. It is often difficult, if not
impossible to measure and compare values of the overall benefits of
pleasures, say a 5 year old’s delight over a new toy with a 30 year old’s
delight with a new lover. Whatever a person desires is valuable or
beneficial to that person and cannot be the same for all persons. It is
because of such considerations that Bentham’s version was, even in his
own day referred to as the “pig philosophy” since a pig enjoying his life
would constitute a higher moral state than a slightly dissatisfied Socrates.

MILL’S EUDAIMONISTIC UTILITARIANISM

It was to meet these sorts of objections and save utilitarianism from the
charge of being a pig philosophy that Bentham’s brilliant successor, John
Stuart Mill, sought to distinguish happiness from pleasure. He defined
“the good” in terms of well-being (Aristotle’s eudaimonia) and
distinguished not just quantitatively but also qualitatively between
various forms of pleasure. Intellectual pleasures that one might derive
from high culture, scientific knowledge, intellectual activity and
spirituality are more valuable than purely sensual pleasures one might
derive from eating, drinking, sexuality, resting and sensual titillation. Mill
argues that “a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy,
is capable of more acute suffering and certainly accessible to it at more
points than one of an inferior type.” All utilitarians agree that things are
valuable because they tend to produce well-being or diminish ill-being
differently.

However, the question still remains as to whose well-being utilitarianism

should aim to maximize. For the egoist, an action should aim to
maximize the well-being of the person who performed the action. For the
utilitarian, an action should aim to maximize the well-being of everyone
28
affected by the action. All who are affected count equally. Utilitarianism
requires that ethical judgments be based on what Peter Singer calls the
equal consideration of interest. This includes the important idea that when
we calculate the utility of actions, we do so from an impartial perspective
and not from a “partialist” perspective that favours ourselves, our friends
or others we especially care about. Bentham formulated this concisely
when he wrote “everyone to count for one, nobody for more than one”

VIRTUE ETHICS
The term virtue ethics refers to a variety of ethical theories or theoretical
approaches that have a central focus on the moral qualities (“virtues”) of
individual people or institutions. Virtue ethics was first advocated by
Aristotle before it receded into the background behind deontological and
consequentialist/teleological thinking for two centuries. It has recently re-
emerged with renewed vigour in the work of such philosophers as
Alasdair Macintyre, Rosalind Hursthouse Philippa Foot, and G.E.
Anscombe.

“This revival has been in response, in part, to a sense that ethics cannot be
reduce to the determination of right actions with respect to a set of rules
or likely consequences” (Pinsent, 2012:1).Virtue ethics now offers a
“flexible alternative to rule-focused ethical theories” (Winter, 2012:1), a
useful “counterweight to deontological and teleological approaches”
(Banks and Gallagher, 2009:49). Before addressing the question “what
should I do?” virtue ethics focuses on “what kind of person should I be?”
(Peterson, 2013:33); that is, virtue ethics focuses on the inherent character
of an individual before addressing the specific actions performed by it.

Virtues are habits of mind and heart carried out actively in a manner that
benefits ourselves and others (Boss, 2014:395). They are to be cultivated
throughout life and not in isolation – they require interactions with others
within community to be sustained; they are both worthwhile in
themselves and our means to flourish as human beings together in society
(Macintyre, 1985:191, 219-220 and 273; see also 1999: 111-112).

A good life was viewed by Aristotle as one in accord with virtue or

excellence and guided by practical wisdom. Aristotle defined virtue of
character as “lying in a mean, a mean that is relative to us, a mean
defined by reason, and by the reason by which the wise person would
define it” This is referred to as the Golden Mean.
29
The concept of the golden mean, the desirable middle between two
extremes, is central to Aristotle’s notion of virtue. Aristotle reasoned that
there are extremes of excess and deficiency. It is not enough to avoid
extremes, Aristotle observed that context must be considered, he stated,
“anyone can get angry, or give and spend money—these are easy; but
doing them in relation to the right person, in the right amount, at the time,
with right aim in view and in the right way” is what makes something
virtuous (Aristotle 2000, 35). In regard to passion, Aristotle contended
that we must evaluate how to feel and act “toward the right person to the
right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way” (Hauser
2006, 152).

For Aristotle, excess or deficiency is associated with vice (Aristotle 2000,

39). Excess can be identified in everything from food to fear. A person
with too much fear is considered cowardly, while a person with not
enough fear is considered rash. In the same way, consuming too much or
too little food can both render a person unhealthy (Ross 1995, 200).
Means can be found in a wide variety of subjects from speech to justice
(Aristotle 2000, 76, 85).

Aristotle held that there is a right amount for nearly every action; how-
ever, the right amount may differ by individual. Two people may be
equally virtuous for giving different amounts to a charity based on their
own ability to give (Aristotle 2000, 29; Ross 1995, 204). Aristotle
believed that some things are inherently wrong, and the proper amount of
those actions is to not to engage in them at all. He therefore reasoned that
there is not a mean
for everything. For example, there is no right amount of theft or murder.
Aristotle stated, “Virtue is a state involving rational choice, consisting in
a mean relative to us and determined by reason” (Aristotle 2000, 31).

For Aristotle, good character is something which can be developed, not

necessarily something a person is born with. Character therefore differs
from something like the sense of hearing or sense of smell, which most
people naturally possess. Virtue and character are believed to be able to
be acquired through exercise and practice. Just as one can practice the
lyre or practice building, one can practice the virtue of temperance.
Aristotle states that “moral virtue comes about as a result of habit” or in
Sandel’s (2009, 197) words we learn by “doing.”
30
According to Sandel becoming virtuous is like learning to play the flute.
We do not learn to play a musical instrument by listening to a lecture. We
have to practice; one can’t become a skilled violinist without fiddling. We
become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, and
brave by doing brave acts. In other words, the fire fighter charges into a
burning building because he has done it a 100 times before and has been
trained to do it. The person is not innately brave but has been trained to
act in a brave manner when confronting a particular situation.

Aristotle contends that moral virtue involves choices that people made.
The goal of human choice is living well; practical wisdom is necessary
for living well. Things such as wealth are viewed only as a means toward
a worthy ends. Honour, pleasure, reason, and individual virtues are
worthy but they can also be sought for the sake of happiness. Happiness
(eudaimonia) is equated with human flourishing. The happy person
creates a life characterized by self-sufficiency and completeness (Audi
1999, 51).

Habits should cultivate good character. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle

stated that moral education was less about promulgating rules than
formulating habits and shaping character. Aristotle believed it made all
the difference if we form habits of one kind or of another from our youth.
Early inculcation of desirable habits helps in acquiring a virtuous
character (Sandel 2009, 198).

31