An Introduction to Ethics

MELINDA NARISMMA-
CASAUAY,MPA
 What is right and wrong?

• A 12-year-old girl was taken in marriage in the

village of Lohutok, S. Sudan. Is that good or bad?
Why?
• Should the death penalty apply for a man or woman
engaged in consensual homosexual acts?
• Is it good for a husband to donate his sperm to his
infertile wife, so that she can be artificially
inseminated and perhaps bear their child?

2
 Religion Philosophy
• Founded upon revelation • Founded upon reason
• Concerned with morals • Concerned with ethics
– Morals are absolute. – Ethics are relative. (School of
– Have to do with person- to- Morals?)
God – Are person-to-person
• Concerned with • Not concerned with nature,
―supranature‖ but with ―metanature‖
• Miracles are a part (science concerned with
• Goal is to find God nature)
• Arthur A. Custance, Noah’s • Miracles are irrelevant
Three Sons, p. 29. • Goal is to find truth

3
 Ethics (Moral Philosophy) Defined

• It concerns the nature of the right [deontology] and

the nature of the good [utility].
• Theories of the good are of two basic types:
– Theistic ( based upon the assumption of a God)
– Philosophical/anthropological (based upon reason)

4
 Theistic ethics

• Monotheistic (believing in one god) religions, such

as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, believe that one
God exists, can be accessed, and is in control of
earthly events.
– Their holy books provide detailed guidance as to what God
considers to be right and good.
– This guidance is taken as absolute, and may be in the form of
commands.
THEISTIC –means relating to or characterized by belief in the
existence of the God or Gods

5
 Absolute and Relative Theistic Ethics

• Some theists believe in moral absolutes—that

certain acts, thoughts and failures to act are always
wrong. Absolutes are contained in books believed
to have been transmitted from God.
• Other theists consider ―absolutes‖ more as
guidelines and would consider absolutists as
presumptuous or even arrogant.

6
 Indo-European Origins of Philosophy

• Indo-European tribes conquered India from the

northwest from about 1800-1500 BC. They
produced the Vedas (―knowledge‖) which are the
oldest of Hindu sacred books. (Noss & Noss, p. 73-74).
– The Greeks are another branch of these tribes. (Noss, p. 73).
– ―Only Indo-Europeans have continually returned to the
fundamental problems of metaphysics, the Aryans in India (giving
rise to Hindu Philosophy), the Greeks in Greece….‖ Arthur A.
Custance, Noah’s Three Sons, Zondervan, 1975, p. 31.

7
 Hindu/Buddhist philosophy

• ―The gods of the early Indo-Europeans were gods

of light, but this light was not moral light but rather
the illumination of the mind or understanding.‖
• Philosophy can be defined as ―strictly rational
speculation, concerned with the ultimate nature and
meaning of reality, apart from revelation, to satisfy
a purely intellectual need…‖ Custance, p. 30.

8
 3 Stages in the History of Ethics

• First stage: moral authority shifted from above

humans (the divine), to humans.
• Second stage: extending the belief that humans are
responsible only to humans
– Rise of nihilism and relativism
• Third stage: focus shifting from individual to public
ethics—toward utilitarianism.
– Applied ethics is popular
– Virtue ethics is gaining ground
• From J. B. Schneewind, ―Modern moral philosophy,‖ ch. 12 in A
Companion to Ethics, Peter Singer, ed. ISBN: 0631187855

9
 Philosophical ethics--Assumptions

• Assumes that humans are basically good, and can

be more ethical.
• Reason is a sufficient basis for developing ethics.
• Humans are accountable only to other humans.

10
 Philosophical ethics--Assumptions

• Carl F.H. Henry noted these assumptions:

1. ― n ature is the ultimate
reality‖
• Humans are essentially animals.

• ―truth and right are intrinsically time-bound

and
changing‖
Carl F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics, 1957, p. 23

1
1
 Locating Ethics Within Philosophy

Meta-ethics ―What is goodness?‖

(philosophical How are good and bad
questions) determined?
Normative ethics ―What should we do?‖
(“moral” questions) Deontology Utility,
Ethical theory Virtue,
(Teleological=+goals)
Applied ethics What is right and wrong
in specific situations 12
 Moral Facts [Truth]

• Ethicial philosophers can be classified in one of two

ways:
– (1 those who believe that moral facts exist, and
– (2 those who either deny that moral facts exist, or, if they exist, deny
that they can be known.

13
 Schools of Those Who Accept Moral
Truth
• A further division--for those who have come so far
as to believe that moral good exists--is among
those who emphasize
– what is right (deontologists)
– what is good (utilitarians or consequentialists)
– virtue or character as the basis for ethics.

14
 Theories of Moral Truth
Ethical Moral Truth Exists: Moral Truth Doesn’t Exist:
Theories:
Cognitivism (―moral facts‖ can be Non-cognitivism (―Moral facts‖ are just
discovered by reason expressions of desire.)

Descriptivism (―Moral judgments can Non-descriptivism (Moral judgments are

be true or false.‖) neither true or false.)
Sources in , A Intuitionism (We know right and wrong Projectivism (We project our values upon a
Companion to
Ethics, Peter innately—‖moral sense theory.‖) world that has none.)
Singer, Ed.
―Relativism‖ by Naturalism (Moral facts are found in Nihilism (Moral facts don’t exist and morality
David Wong, pp.
442-450 nature and are scientific or social is false.)
scientific.)
Realism‖, Michael
Smith, p 399-410
Absolutism (Bible, Prescriptivist) Relativism (Morality is a function of culture
(There is one truth-- two sides can’t be and history—it isn’t absolute.)
right.)

―Intuitionism‖ by
Jonathan Dancy,
Moral Realism (moral facts validated Irrealism (There are no moral facts.)
pp. 411-419 by the consensus of behavior and
bycircumstances—‖
―Universal
Consequentialism (Try to find the Error theory (―denies that moral sentences
Prescriptivism‖, by
most good for the most people.) express propositions‖) Wikipedia ―Ethical
R.M. Hare, pp.
451-463 Naturalism‖ 16
Moral T eories that “ ight”
Deontological exists
Consequential Virtue,
theories: h(of the “Right”) r(of the Character
“Good”)

Basis: Absolutes Consequence Character

Activity: Obeying Weighing Being

Example: Universal Greek (Plato)

prescriptivism Utilitarianism Aquinas
(Kant)
Natural law Egoism Humanistic
Franklin
Hedonism
Naturalism Biblical
16
 Arguments against absolutes: Diversity
– Because moral standards differ so much among cultures, morality
derives from local ethics, not from innate moral absolutes
– But diversity can say nothing about what is right and wrong, only
about what is.
– Diversity does not rule out absolutes. One system can still be right.
– An overall pattern or morality is there, despite differences in details.
Generally, stealing and murder within the in-group and adultery are
wrong, while penalties differ. (Ethics: Approaching moral decisions.
Arthur F. Holmes. 2nd ed., 2007, ISBN: 978-0-8308-2803-6, p. 136)

17
 Arguments against absolutes: Diversity
– Local moral standards have been transformed by Christian teaching,
reducing diversity. Examples are slavery and cannibalism. (Holmes,
citing William Frankena, p. 20)
• Other examples are killing twins and albinos in Africa, and burning
widows (sutee).
– "[T]he relativist cannot consistently reject all intolerance. In tolerating
other moralities than his own, he must tolerate their
intolerance....Further, at least one virtue, tolerance, is then not
entirely relative; and at least one moral belief, the belief that we
ought to be tolerant, is taken to be true." (Holmes, p. 23)

18
 Argument against absolutes:
Dependency (determinism)
• Humans are socialized into accepting moral/ethical
practices, which they must accept.
– People cannot believe otherwise—beliefs are determined by
environment.
– If so, how do non-conformists, reformers and prophets arise?
– Determinism is not a view that can be chosen, since those who
believe it have no choice but to believe it. If so, the determinist
cannot say that this view is independently better than another.
(Holmes, p. 139)

20
Argument against absolutes: Dependency
(determinism)
•The Holy Spirit, by the power and grace of
God, can overcome any environmental
upbringing and social norms, as well as ethics
generated by sin.

20
Lack of consensus among philosophers

•Moral philosophers tend to pull down one

another's theories, while confidently highlighting
their own. You find that few agree as to what
moral facts there may be, and some cannot even
agree that moral facts are possible. Even if such
facts could somehow be discovered by reason
alone, ethicists would probably not rally around
them. They have been trying for at least 2500
years, but have reached no consensus.

21
 Evolutionary ethics

• If the material universe is the product of nothing,

plus time, plus chance, or if matter itself is eternal,
there is no necessary value to that universe, or
anything in it.
– Ethics becomes a matter of personal choice, plus culture, plus a
point on the time spectrum.
– Right and wrong are defined by the majority and enforced by
sanctions.

22
 Valentine (March 2010)

• He is a physics student in a European university.

– He accepts no absolutes, not wanting anyone to tell him what to do.
Religion is used to control people, he believes.
– He repeated several times that he didn’t know the difference
between right and wrong, and used those terms as if they had
definable content. I suggested that he would not want me to steal his
wallet or to abduct his sister, with whom he was traveling. He thought that in
some circumstances taking his money would be justified [situation
ethics], but did not respond to the abduction statement.
– Individuals had value because they formed communities. He seemed
to be concerned for minorities. A weakness of utilitarian ethics is that
minorities are not protected, if good is defined by doing the most
good for the greatest number.

23
 Valentine

• He claimed that the UN hurt developing peoples by

providing free commodities, hurting businesses
providing these items, revealing concerned for
small business people.
• He advocates going to a tribe or people to help
them to clarify their own values, for each individual
to determine what is right and wrong.
– How each person formulating his own ethical system would foster
community he did not say. This seems instead to be the worst
possible foundation for community.
– The person has no intrinsic worth.
• So is the terrible task of defining good and evil for
one’s self, with its inevitable inconsistencies. END 28