Question: Discuss the meaning and nature of ethics.

Answer: The word “ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethos (meaning "custom" or "habit").
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with principles or standards of human conduct,
sometimes called morals (derived from the Latin word mores, meaning “customs”). This is why it
is also sometimes called moral philosophy. Ethics deals with the questions of good and bad, right
and wrong behaviour. It examines our understanding of the abstract concepts of good and bad,
how we learn these concepts, and how we apply them in judging the rightness or wrongness of
our actions and making decisions about how we live our lives. (Define Ethics.)

Like other areas of philosophy, ethics emerged as an attempt to find a rational explanation for
beliefs that were simply accepted by convention. Ideas of good and bad were generally dictated
by religion or tradition, with laws describing right or wrong behaviour. But philosophers were
not content to accept the rightness or wrongness of an action at face value. They tried to identify
the properties of these actions that make them morally either good or bad. Ethics tries to identify
these moral properties in order to provide reasonable grounds for our ethical judgments.

Ethics is not a descriptive science; it is normative. A descriptive science deals with facts. But ethics
does not deal with facts. Rather it deals with values. Ethics is concerned with judgments of value
rather than judgments of facts. It deals with standards or norms by which we can judge human
actions to be right or wrong. In other words, it is concerned with ‘what ought to be’ rather than
‘what is.’ This makes it one of the most relevant branches of philosophy, as decisions involving
right and wrong have to be made in every walk of life, from the formal verdicts of courts of law to
our personal lifestyle choices. (“Ethics is a normative science.” Comment)

Ethics can be divided into three sub-types, depending on the ethical questions one is dealing with.
There are questions like "Is killing in general wrong?" (Normative Ethics), "Is judicial killing
(capital punishment) wrong?" (Applied Ethics), and "What does 'wrong' even mean?" (Meta-
Ethics).

Normative Ethics is the branch of ethics concerned with establishing how things should or ought
to be, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative ethical
theories are procedures for answering the practical question ("What ought I to do?").

Applied Ethics attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations and is therefore used in
determining public policy. The following concerns come under the domain of applied ethics: "Is
getting an abortion immoral?", "Do animals have rights as well?”, “Does news have to be
objective?”, “Is capital punishment wrong?” etc.

Meta ethics is a branch of philosophy which examines ethical language to find what it means and
how it is used. A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not attempt to
evaluate specific actions as being better, worse, good, bad or evil; rather it “goes beyond,” trying
to define the essential meaning and nature of the problem being discussed.
(Define Normative/ Applied/ Meta Ethics.)

To conclude, it is perhaps easier to see the relevance of moral philosophy to the everyday world
than any other branches of philosophy. We use our moral judgment to decide what we consider
good and bad, and how we should act in certain situations. In addition to deciding our own
individual moral code, together we establish laws based on ethical judgments. These not only
prevent crimes and injustices, but determine how we govern our societies—the political systems.
(What is the relevance of ethics/ moral philosophy?)
Question: Discuss the origins of morality.
Answer: Morality refers to what is right and what is wrong. We all have a good idea of what is
considered right and wrong in our society, college, home, and among our friends and relatives.
These beliefs about right and wrong are important to us. But where do these moral beliefs
originate? Philosophers have never been in complete agreement about the origins of morality.
Some argue that God created morality. There are those who say that morality is constructed by
people, just like they construct homes, music, art, and culture. For them, this construction is
achieved through human reason. Others some say that morality arises out of human conscience –
an inner knowledge of right and wrong.

Morality comes from God

Some philosophers link moral principles to God, saying that being morally good is to obey God’s
will. It makes sense that God is the one who has given people the ultimate rules to live by because
God is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. If human beings want to be moral (and
usually they are encouraged in such desires by some sort of temporal or eternal reward), then
they must follow these principles. If they don’t, then they will end up being disobedient to God,
will be considered immoral, and will usually be given some temporal or eternal punishment for
their transgressions. The belief that there is a relationship between God and morality goes back
at least as far as people have written down their ideas. It has been such an influential belief that
it is found embedded in the laws, customs, and language of our society.

Morality comes from Human Beings

a) Some philosophers try to ground morality in human reason. Human thinking processes,
by their very nature, produce moral beliefs and judgements. For instance, because you
know what it is like to feel pain, you easily reason that inflicting pain upon others is a bad
thing to do. Even though people are different individually, human reason seems to
produce just about the same results for everyone. It seems rationally evident that if
everyone tried to do and be good and tried to avoid and prevent bad, it would be in
everyone’s self-interest. Many philosophers observe a similarity of moral codes within
various religions, individuals, and cultures. Almost all of them agree on some basic moral
principles, such as caring for one’s children, telling the truth and not murdering. Even if
people are completely selfish, they can rationalize that it is in their best interests to follow
these basic moral rules.

b) Some philosophers suggest that morality comes from the human conscience. Most people
appear to have a sense of moral awareness, that is, a sense of what they believe to be right
and wrong. This ability to reflect morally upon your actions is often called having a
conscience. However, philosophers hold various opinions as to where the conscience
actually comes from. Some explain it as an inner sanctuary of laws inscribed by God.
Others believe that it is an innate sense of right and wrong, which exists in each person
when he or she is born. Others believe that conscience is something you learn. It is wholly
a product of personal experiences. The purpose of the conscience is to ensure that there
is a relationship between doing good and feeling good, and doing something bad and
feeling guilt. In other words, if you do something good, you will feel good, and if you do
something bad, you will feel bad. Absence of conscience is considered an indication of a
deeply disturbed, even insane, individual.
Question: Discuss the justifications of morality.
Answer: “Why should human beings be moral?” is one of the most fundamental questions in
ethics. Another way of putting the problem is as follows: “Can any reasons be found for human
beings to be good and do right acts rather than be bad and do wrong acts?” For example, does it
really matter if you were to lie to or steal from a stranger? The material gain from theft is obvious.
The reasons not to steal are not as obvious. Then why is stealing considered wrong? Saying that
“it is just not right” is not a good enough answer to satisfy philosophers. They demand to know
the underlying reasons for things. Some philosophers say that people are moral only to avoid
punishment. To others, people are moral as a consequence of obeying the long-standing customs
and traditions. Some philosophers believe that a person’s moral behaviour comes from the ability
to reason. They say that it just makes sense to be moral. These diverse views are explained as
follows.

Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest

It can be argued that it is generally better to be good rather than bad and to create a world and
society that is good rather than one that is bad. If everyone tried to do and be good and tried to
avoid and prevent bad, it would be in everyone’s self-interest. For example, if within a group of
people no one killed, stole, lied, or cheated, then each member of the group would benefit. An
individual member of the group could say, “It’s in my self-interest to do good rather than bad
because I stand to benefit if I do and also because I could be punished if I don’t.”

Argument from Fear of Punishment

Most people who perform acts that are thought to be bad often suffer consequences for these acts.
Parents discipline their children, schools impose penalties upon students, and the state imposes
punishment upon those guilty of crime. An individual’s own conscience may make him or her feel
bad. The fear of punishment is usually thought of as one of the most basic reasons why people
perform good acts. It does not involve the complexity of higher moral reasoning.

Argument from Tradition and Law

This argument suggests that because traditions and laws, established over a long period of time,
govern the behaviour of human beings, and because these traditions and laws urge human beings
to be moral rather than immoral, these are good reasons for being moral. Most of us have learned
morality through the traditions and laws of our religion, culture and region. We all remember
being told we should or should not do something because God said it was right or wrong, or
because it was the way we were supposed to act in our family, school, society, and world.

Common Human Needs

If we examine human nature as empirically and rationally as we can, we discover that all human
beings have many needs, desires, goals, and objectives in common. For example, people generally
seem to need friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace, creativity, and stability in their lives,
not only for themselves but for others, too. In order to satisfy these needs, people must establish
and follow moral principles that a) encourage them to cooperate with one another, and b) free
them from fear that they will lose their lives, or be stolen from, lied to, or imprisoned. Thus, the
question “Why should human beings be moral?” generally can best be answered by the statement
that following moral principles enables human beings to live their lives as peacefully, happily,
creatively, and meaningfully as is possible.
Question: Discuss what is meant by Normative Ethics.
Answer: Normative Ethics deals with ethical norms (or standards or rules) and prescriptions. It
involves the attempt to formulate systems of rules that are used to distinguish between morally
permissible and morally impermissible behaviour. The golden rule — “Do to others as you would
want them do to you”—is one example of a normative principle. It is a rule that one might consult
when deciding how to behave. Normative Ethics can therefore be defined as the branch of ethics
concerned with establishing how things should or ought to be, which things are good or bad, and
which actions are right or wrong.
To better understand normative ethics, it is useful to distinguish it from what is called descriptive
ethics. This approach is most often used in the social sciences and, like normative ethics, deals
with human behaviour and conduct. For example, some psychologists, after having observed
many human beings in many situations, have reached the conclusion that human beings often act
in their own self-interest. This is a descriptive, or scientific, approach to human behaviour—the
psychologists have observed how human beings act in many situations, described what they have
observed, and drawn conclusions. However, they make no value judgments as to what is morally
right or wrong nor do they prescribe how humans ought to behave. Descriptive Ethics thus is
simply a description of what happens. It is about ‘is’ rather than ‘ought’. (What is descriptive
ethics?)

Normative Ethics, on the other hand, is about ‘ought.’ Using the example that human beings often
act in their own self-interest, normative ethical philosophers would go beyond the description
and conclusion of the psychologists and would want to know whether human beings should or
ought to act in their own self-interest. They might even go further and come up with a definite
conclusion; for example, “Human beings should always act in their own self-interest.” Or they
might say, “Human beings should always act in the interest of others,” or “Human beings should
always act in the interest of all concerned, self-included.” These three conclusions are no longer
merely descriptions, but prescriptions; that is, the statements are prescribing how human beings
should behave, not merely describing how they do, in fact, behave. (How is normative ethics
different from descriptive ethics?)

Normative ethics thus takes the step that descriptive ethics avoids. It looks at a statement about
behaviour and asks ‘Is it right to do that?’ So, for example, in descriptive ethics you simply point out
the number of abortions that take place. In normative ethics you go on to ask ‘But is it right to have
an abortion?’

There are three main theories of normative ethics, which are as follows:

a) Consequentialism: Here the morality of an action is based on the results or outcome of the
action. If there is a good outcome, then an action is considered morally right; if there is a
bad outcome, then an action is considered morally wrong. Thus, human beings ought to
behave in ways that will bring about good consequences.
b) Deontology: Deontology stresses that each of us has certain duties – actions that we ought
or ought not to perform – and that acting morally amounts to doing our duty, whatever
consequences might follow from this. Thus, some actions are absolutely right or wrong
regardless of the results which follow from them.
c) Virtue Ethics: Rather than looking outside of the agent at what the right acts are or what
the consequences of actions are, and then saying that the morally good person must do
these acts, virtue ethics starts by looking at the morally good person and determines what
is good on the basis of what such a person would do.

(Briefly discuss any one theory of normative ethics.)

Question: Discuss what is meant by Applied Ethics.
Answer: Sometimes moral philosophers think about the nature of morality itself. Sometimes they
think about which moral theory is the best. But at other times they look in detail at particular
practical issues and the philosophical problems these generate. This involves the application of
moral theory to practical problems and is known as applied ethics. The following concerns come
under the domain of applied ethics: "Is getting an abortion immoral?", "Do we have duties
towards the environment?", "Do animals have rights as well?”, “Does news have to be objective?”,
“Is capital punishment wrong?” etc.

(Give one example of an applied ethics issue.)

Generally speaking, two features are necessary for a practical issue to be considered an "applied
ethical issue." First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant
groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. The second requirement for an issue to
be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a distinctly moral issue, and not merely a legal one.
Discussions in applied ethics often confuse what is legal and what is moral. The two realms are
related and yet are distinct. Applied ethics is about deciding what is right or wrong. We may
decide that something is right which is currently illegal, or something is wrong which is currently
legal.

(When is an issue considered an applied ethical issue?)

Moral thinking about practical issues often takes the form of looking closely at the issue and trying
to identify the relevant moral questions it raises. Consider the issue of how people should spend
their money. It is very rare for people in the developed countries to starve to death, since either
they have a decent enough income to provide for themselves, or there are social services and
charities to provide food for those in need. But things are very different in the underdeveloped
countries, where thousands of people die from starvation each day. Given that the former have
an income and that they are, relatively speaking, much better off than the latter, do they have an
obligation to give some of their money to help the latter? Or is it morally ok for them to spend all
of their money on themselves and those close to them? Can and should there be a law requiring
them to contribute a part of their wealth? Practical issues like these are very complicated, since
they are often closely related to other moral issues, involve appeal to different values, sometimes
have moral and legal aspects, and do not admit of easy or straightforward answers.

The practical nature of applied ethics has made it a very helpful tool in determining public policy.
This explains why work in applied ethics has experienced significant and ever-increasing growth
over the past fifty years. In fact, some of the most intensive work being done in ethics today
involves philosophers working on biomedical ethics, wrestling with the complicated issues raised
by new medical technologies, including stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and use and
termination of artificial life prolongation. And while biomedical ethics is the largest and best-
known area of applied ethics, more and more attention is being paid to issues in numerous other
fields, including legal ethics, media ethics, business ethics, feminist ethics and environmental
ethics. (Name at least three ethical areas where applied ethics comes into play.)

To conclude, ethical theory and applied ethics need to be examined alongside one another. It is not
enough to show that a theory is logical, it needs to be tested out by applying it to practical situations
to see if it yields reasonable results. Equally, one can reflect on practical moral decisions and ask
oneself what ethical theories are at work in these situations.
Question: Discuss what is meant by Meta Ethics.
Answer: Meta ethics is a branch of philosophy which examines ethical language to find what it
means and how it is used. It is concerned primarily with the meaning of ethical judgments. “Meta”
is a Greek word that means “beyond,” or “after”. A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical
theory, does not attempt to evaluate specific actions as being better, worse, good, bad or evil;
rather it “goes beyond,” trying to define the essential meaning and nature of the problem being
discussed. (What is meant by meta ethics?)

Since metaethics is largely concerned with examining moral language, the key elements are
conceptual analysis and examination of the reasoning involved. For example, if I say that stealing
is wrong, am I making a statement that can be true or false in the same way that it is a true (or
false) statement that you are holding this book in your hand? Can moral statements be said to be
either true or false? Do they express more than the preferences of the person who makes them?
What does it mean to say that something is right or wrong? These questions are not themselves
moral statements; they do not say that any particular thing is right or wrong. Thus, meta-ethicists
analyse ethical language (e.g., what we mean when we use the word good) rather than telling us
whether something is moral or immoral.

Within metaethics, views can be broadly divided into realist or antirealist. Moral realism is the
belief that there are objective moral values. Therefore, according to this meta-ethical viewpoint,
value judgments are actually factual claims, and whether these claims are true or false is
independent of one’s beliefs and feelings. Thus, ethical sentences are either true or false. Good
and bad are properties of situations and people, right and wrong are properties of actions. Just as
people can be five feet tall or run fast, they can be morally good or bad. Just as actions can be done
in ten minutes or done from greed, they can be right or wrong. The latter properties are as
objective as the former. Thus, moral realism equates moral properties with natural properties.
These moral properties are a genuine part of the objective world. (What is meant by moral
realism?)

In contrast, moral antirealism denies the existence of objective moral values. Instead, moral
antirealists claim that such judgements are merely expressions of our personal emotions and
preferences and are intended to affect the feelings of others. For example, when we say that
‘stealing is wrong,’ we are either expressing a personal feeling of disgust towards stealing or want
to discourage others from stealing. We are not expressing any fact about the act of stealing. Moral
judgements are therefore neither true nor false and are incapable of expressing objective facts
about the world. Thus, there is no ultimate moral reality; we just live by a set of mutually agreed
upon practical conventions.

(What is meant by moral antirealism? What is the difference between moral realism and
moral antirealism?)

Meta ethics, although always used by all ethicists to some extent, has become the sole interest of
many modern ethical philosophers. This may be due in part to the increasing difficulty of
formulating a system of ethics applicable to all or even most human beings. Our world, our
cultures, and our lives have become more and more complicated and pluralistic, and finding an
ethical system that will be applicable to everyone is a difficult if not impossible task. Therefore,
these philosophers feel that they might as well do what other specialists have done and
concentrate on language and logic rather than attempt to arrive at a universal normative ethics.

(Why do many modern ethical philosophers work in the area of meta ethics?)
Question: Discuss the Divine Command Theory of Ethics.

Answer: Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is dependent upon God, and that the
morally right action is the one that God commands or requires. The theory asserts that what is
moral is determined by God's commands and a person is moral if he follows God's commands. The
specific content of these divine commands varies according to the particular religion. An example
of divine command theory, according to theists, is that God commands humans not to steal. Thus,
it is the moral duty of humans to refrain from stealing. Thus, what makes something morally right
is that God commands it, and what makes something morally wrong is that God forbids it. (Define
Divine Command Theory.)

For divine command theorists, morality is independent of what any individual thinks or likes and
what any society happens to sanction. God establishes moral laws. Those laws are eternally true
and are universally binding on all people, regardless of whether everyone obeys them. Such
divinely established laws are interpreted in a religious tradition.

The Divine Command theory is an absolutist theory. This means that there is no debate or
discussion over whether an action is right or wrong. The reason is that God is considered all-good
and has told us what we should do and should not do through various scriptures or various
prophets. This is why any act that goes against what God has commanded is classed as wrong,
whatever the situation or circumstance is. This implies that the Divine Command theory is a non-
consequentialist theory of ethics. In ethics, non-consequentialism is the theory that consequences
do not, and should not, be the criteria for judging actions or people as moral or immoral. And this
is exactly what the Divine Command theory says: Whatever the situation be, if we do what God
commands, then we do the right thing; if we disobey God’s commands, then, no matter what the
consequences, we do wrong. (How is Divine Command theory a non-consequentialist
theory?)

The Divine Command theory is one of the oldest and most popular theories of ethics. Followers
of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have accepted the
importance of God's commands in establishing morality. However, it has several weaknesses,
some of which are discussed as follows:

a) There are a number of different sacred scriptures. Which one expresses what God
commands? It is true that many things are similar in different scriptures. For example,
both Judaism and Islam say that God commands us to respect our parents. But they differ
in many specific details regarding what God commands. How are we to know which of
these scriptures is right? Which one should we follow?
b) Can we be sure that God even exists? There is a lack of scientific or rational foundation for
the existence of any sort of supernatural being or beings. And without God’s existence, the
whole theory collapses. Even if one could prove conclusively the existence of the
supernatural, how could one prove that any supernatural being is morally trustworthy?
c) Even if we accept the existence of a supernatural being and His commandments, how
could we be sure that we are interpreting them correctly? There are different
interpretations of the Koran, the Bible, and scriptures of other religions and these often
conflict with each other. How are we to know which interpretation is the correct one?
d) Last but not the least, what help do these scriptural commands offer to the unbeliever and
the atheist? If morality is following God’s commands, does it mean that the unbeliever can
have no morality?
(Give some weaknesses/shortcomings of the Divine Command theory.)
Question: Discuss the concept of Egoism in ethics./ Discuss the concept of Ethical Egoism.

Answer: The term “egoism” derives from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English. In philosophy,
egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own
action. Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position. (Define Egoism.)

Psychological egoism is the descriptive version of egoism. It describes human nature as being
wholly self-centered and self-motivated. It asserts that people always act in their own interests,
and, it is not possible for them to act otherwise, even though they may disguise their motivation
with references to helping others or doing their duty. It is a purely descriptive theory that claims
to describe a basic fact about human nature. (Define Psychological Egoism.)

Ethical egoism is the normative version of egoism. It is the view that people ought to pursue their
own self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone else’s interests. We act
morally when we act in a way that best promotes our own long-term interests. So, an action is
morally right if it produces more good and fewer bad consequences for me than any other action
I could perform in its place. It is thus a normative theory because it is concerned with how people
ought to behave. (Define Ethical Egoism.)

The difference between ethical and psychological egoism is simply that ethical egoism makes a
claim about how people should behave while psychological egoism makes a claim about how they
actually behave. Ethical egoism holds that people ought to act out of self-interest, but
psychological egoism holds that people always act out of self-interest, whether they ought to or
not. (What is the difference between Psychological and Ethical Egoism?)

Ethical egoism can take three possible forms:

1. Individual ethical egoism, which states that everyone ought to act in my self-interest.
2. Personal ethical egoism, which states that I ought to act in my own self-interest, but makes no
claims about what anyone else ought to do.
3. Universal ethical egoism, which states that everyone ought to act in his or her own best self-
interest, regardless of the interests of others.
Out of these, the first two apply only to one individual. This is a real drawback because we think
of morality as something applicable to all human beings. Thus, they are not realistic ethical
principles at all. Only the universal ethical egoist position is a real ethical position as it is
universalizable, meaning that it can be laid down for humanity in general as a moral principle.
(What are the various types of ethical egoism?)

Ethical egoism has been criticized by many philosophers on the grounds that it is inconsistent
with “the moral point of view.” According to these philosophers, any theory of ethics must evaluate
people’s actions from the moral point of view. By the “moral point of view,” they mean the point
of view of someone who is impartial, that is, who is not biased in favour of one individual or group
over another. Ethical egoism, is clearly not consistent with the moral point of view because it
claims that you should be partial to your own interests.

Another criticism is that ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises involving
conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort. For example, a company wants to empty
waste into a river; the people living downstream object. Ethical egoism advises that both parties
actively pursue what they want. In this situation, this does not suggest any sort of resolution or
commonsense compromise. (What are the drawbacks of ethical egoism?)
Question: Discuss the concept of Relativism in ethics.

Answer: Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine
whether something is right or wrong. Moral relativists argue that good and bad are relative
concepts – whether something is considered right or wrong can change depending on opinion,
social context, culture or a number of other factors. (Define relativism.)

Take the example of culture. Each society has a culture and moral standards are part of that
culture. When a person is raised within the culture of a society, she “internalizes” that culture
along with its moral standards. That is, she comes to perceive and value what her culture tells her
she should perceive and value. A form of behaviour is then morally right for that person if and
only if the moral standards of her culture say it is morally right.

Moral relativists hold that there is more than one valid system of morality. Studies of both
primitive and modern cultures reveal an extreme variation in customs, manners, taboos, religions,
moralities, daily habits, and attitudes from culture to culture. Moreover, people in different
cultures tend to believe not merely that there is only one true morality, but also that that one true
morality is the one they hold. This existence of widespread moral diversity throughout history,
between cultures and even within cultures, has led some philosophers to argue that morality is
not absolute, but rather that there might be many valid moral systems: that morality is relative.

There are many kinds of relativism. One of them is called descriptive relativism, according to
which the moral standards people subscribe to are different from culture to culture. However,
descriptive relativism is not an ethical doctrine. It says merely that people in different cultures
have different beliefs about what is morally right and wrong. It says nothing about what is morally
right and morally wrong.

The idea that what a culture believes is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong for people
in that culture is known as cultural relativism, and it is a popular idea in modern times. Many tend
to think, for example, that whether or not you should drink is entirely determined by whether or
not your culture thinks you should drink. Cultural relativists sometimes also advocate being
accepting toward the practices of other cultures. However, it would be inconsistent for a cultural
relativist to advocate being accepting toward another culture’s practice if her or his own culture
thought that practice was wrong.

Another relativist doctrine is known as individual relativism, according to which what is right or
wrong is what each individual believes is right or wrong. If you hold this view, then you would
have to say that nobody ever acts wrongly, if he or she is doing what he or she thinks is right.

(What are the different types of relativism?)

Despite its widespread acceptance, moral relativism is a deeply problematic ethical view. For one
thing, the fact that different cultures or groups disagree isn’t enough to support the idea that there
is no objective moral truth. Groups, like people, can get things wrong. Another problem is that the
fact that people disagree actually seems incompatible with relativism. Suppose I claim that female
infanticide is wrong, and you claim that it is sometimes morally permissible. If relativism is
correct, then when we are faithfully reporting the dominant views in our respective cultures, both
of our statements are true, and so we aren’t really disagreeing after all.

(What are the shortcomings of relativism?)

Question: Discuss the concept of Virtue Ethics as described by Aristotle.
Answer: Aristotle’s theory of morality has more recently become known as “virtue ethics.” Virtue
ethics defines morally right actions as those that would be performed by a virtuous person. Thus,
for Virtue Ethics, the primary question is not “What ought I to do?” but rather “What kind of
person ought I to be?” (What is meant by Virtue Ethics?)

By virtue, Aristotle means “excellence.” Virtue is that quality of any act, or object that makes them
successful acts, or objects. It is, therefore, a functional excellence. According to Aristotle, a
virtuous person is one who knows what is right, does what is right, and does what is right for the
right reason. Reason is at the heart of virtue ethics—Aristotle believed that our capacity for
reason separates us from other living things. Only humans can distinguish between what they are
and what they ought to be. This means that only humans can, by being virtuous—by doing what
they ought to do—get themselves from where and what they are to where and what they ought
to be. Aristotle argued that the true function and purpose of humankind is to exercise reason in
action. To exercise reason in action is to exercise the virtues (do what we know we ought to do)
each time we act. (Define Virtue.)
Only if we exercise the virtues in all of our actions will we achieve life’s purpose—eudaimonia, which
means “happiness” or “flourishing.” To experience pleasure is not to experience eudaimonia. In
Aristotle’s view, the only way we can achieve eudaimonia is by acting, throughout our lives, in
accordance with the virtues. We act virtuously only if we act for the right reason. If, by accident, we
do what virtue requires of us but not because virtue requires it, our act may be virtuous, but we are
not. This is Aristotle’s distinction between a virtuous act and a virtuous agent. (Define
Eudaimonia.)
But how can we become virtuous? Aristotle said that to be virtuous, we must understand the
nature of virtue. There is no instruction manual that tells us how to behave morally. The only way
for us to determine what we should or shouldn’t do is to identify, in each situation, the action that
agrees with the “golden mean.” This will be the action that avoids both an excess and a deficiency
of certain characteristics. A courageous action, for example, avoids rashness (an excess of
courage) and cowardice (a deficiency of courage). Another example would be the act of being
modest, which falls between the extremes of being shy and being shameless. Not only might such
an action be different in each situation, but it might also be different for each person. To be
virtuous, we must therefore also understand ourselves. (Briefly discuss the concept of Golden
Mean.)

For Aristotle, virtuous action is therefore always a mean that would be chosen by a person of
practical wisdom. This is because one can determine the mean only if one already has a practical
notion of what is an excess and what is a defect of the characteristic in question. Such a person is
sensitive to the features of particular circumstances and an excellent judge of how to behave.
Aristotle said, "It's easy to be angry, but to be angry at the right time, for the right reason, at the
right person and in the right intensity must truly be brilliant." Thus, the virtues cannot be taught;
instead, they must be acquired. Even if we are born with a tendency to be honest, we are not born
with the virtue of honesty. To have this virtue is to understand what it means to be honest, to be
consistently honest, and always to be honest for the right reasons.
Question: Discuss the concept of Deontological Ethics as described by Kant.
Answer: The word Deontology is derived form a Greek word which means ‘obligation.’
Deontological ethics stresses that each of us has certain duties – actions that we ought or ought
not to perform – and that acting morally amounts to doing our duty, whatever consequences
might follow from this. Thus, some actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of the results
which follow from them. (What is meant by Deontological Ethics?)

The most famous deontologist is the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
Kant believed that all of our actions are performed either to achieve a desired result or out of a
sense of moral duty—our need to follow the moral law. Acts of the first kind are motivated by
inclination (a form of passion). Kant thought that actions motivated by passion cannot be moral.
An act can only be a moral action, he argued, if the agent puts his or her inclinations aside and
performs it out of duty (because it is required by the moral law). If we could find such moral
absolute laws, then a complete system of ethics could be established. Kant claimed that he had
discovered such a law and named it the Categorical Imperative.
Imperatives tell us what to do—they are instructions. Kant made a distinction between two types of
imperative – hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative tells us how to act in order to
achieve a desired goal. It applies only to people who want to achieve that particular goal. The
categorical imperative, on the other hand, applies to everyone, regardless of individual desires or
circumstances. (Distinguish between Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative.)
The Categorical Imperative may be stated in several ways. Kant formulates it thus: “Act only on
that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be universal law.” What
this means, basically, is that we should only ask ourselves: how would it be if everyone acted the
way I’m acting? Could I sincerely and consistently wish for a world in which everyone behaved
this way? According to Kant, if our action is morally wrong, we would not be able to do this. For
instance, suppose I’m thinking of breaking a promise. Could I wish for a world in which everyone
broke their promises when keeping them was inconvenient? Kant argues that I could not want
this, because in such a world no one would make promises since everyone would know that a
promise meant nothing. Thus, one should act only in ways that are universalizable. (Define
Categorical Imperative.)
The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads, “So act that you use humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never
merely as a means.” What this means is that we should treat other persons as persons and not as
tools which can be of use to us in some way. The key to it is Kant’s belief that what makes us moral
beings is the fact that we are free and rational. To treat someone as a means to your own ends or
purposes is to not respect this fact about them. For instance, if I get you to agree to do something
by making a false promise, I am manipulating you. Your decision to help me is based on false
information (the idea that I’m going to keep my promise). In this way, I have disrespected your
rationality. This is even more obvious if I steal from you or kidnap you in order to get some money.
Treating someone as an end, by contrast, involves always respecting the fact that they are capable
of free rational choices which may be different from the choices you wish them to make.
(Briefly discuss any one formulation of Categorical Imperative.)
Question: What is meant by Consequentialist Ethics?

Answer: Consequentialist ethics is where the morality of an action is based on the consequence
or outcome of the action. If there is a good consequence, then an action is considered morally
right; if there is a bad consequence, then an action is considered morally wrong. Thus, human
beings ought to behave in ways that will bring about good consequences. For instance, most
people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person's life,
consequentialism says it's the right thing to do. (What is meant by Consequentialist Ethics?)

There are many consequentialist ethical theories, among which the best known is Utilitarianism.
In its simplest form it is based on the ‘principle of utility’ which is that, in any situation where
there is a moral choice, one should do that which results in the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. The theory of utilitarianism was set out by Jeremy Bentham and developed by
J. S. Mill. (Define Utilitarianism.)

Bentham worked on the assumption that society is a collection of individuals, and that what is
right for society depends on securing the happiness of those individuals. Bentham believed that
happiness could be defined in terms of pleasure, and he held that the study of pleasure could be
made into a science. Pleasures could be experienced in terms of seven categories. These
categories could be expressed in terms of a set of seven questions:

1. Intensity (How intense is the pleasure?)

2. Duration (How long does the pleasure last?)
3. Certainty (How sure is the pleasure?)
4. Proximity (How soon will the pleasure be experienced?)
5. Fecundity (How many more pleasures will follow this pleasure?)
6. Purity (How free from pain is the pleasure?)
7. Extent (How many people will experience the pleasure?

When considering the moral value of any act, one should analyse it in terms of the pleasure it will
produce in these seven categories, which Bentham called “the calculus of felicity.” Thus, the right
action is one that maximises pleasure and minimises pain. The moral worth of an act depends
exclusively on the amount of happiness or unhappiness that the act promoted.

Bentham’s assessment was essentially quantitative. This meant that only the quantity of pleasure
was important; how the pleasure is produced did not matter at all. For him, eating an ice cream
would be as good as seeing a Shakespeare play if they made you equally happy. All that counts is
the amount of pleasure produced. If the pleasure is the same, the value of the activity is the same.
(Discuss Bentham’s Utilitarianism.)

Mill agreed with Bentham that the right action is always the one that produces the most
happiness, but he came to believe that Bentham was wrong to argue that all ways of bringing
about the same amount of pleasure are equally valuable. So, he developed his own version of
Utilitarianism, one that distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Unlike Bentham, Mill
thought that that “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.”
Mill’s justification for his theory was that anyone who has experienced both higher and lower
pleasures would prefer the higher ones. The intellectual pleasures, which he includes in higher
pleasures, are thus intrinsically more valuable than the physical ones, which are the lower kinds
of pleasures. Lower pleasures, such as those an animal can experience, could never challenge the
higher, intellectual pleasures, like the pleasure of reading a book or listening to a concert. Thus,
it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig, since human beings are capable
of intellectual pleasures as well as the physical ones; pigs cannot have intellectual pleasures.
(Discuss Mill’s Utilitarianism.)
Question: Discuss the concept of Euthanasia.
Answer: The term euthanasia is derived from the combination of the Greek words ‘eu’ meaning
good, and ‘thanatos’ meaning death. Literally, it means ‘good death.’ Euthanasia is the termination
of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering. Due to this reason, many
people call it ‘mercy killing.’ In many cases, euthanasia is carried out at the person's request but
there are times when they may be too ill and the decision is made by relatives, medics or, in some
instances, the courts. (Define Euthanasia.)

Euthanasia is a very controversial issue. At the heart of the controversy are the different ideas that
people have about the meaning and value of human existence. For example, should human beings
have the right to decide on issues of life and death, first of their own, and second, of others? Also, is
there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?

Those in favour of euthanasia argue that a civilised society should allow people to die in dignity
and without pain, and should allow others to help them do so if they cannot manage it on their
own. Our bodies are our own, and we should be allowed to do what we want with them. Making
people go on living when they do not want to violates their personal freedom and human rights.
It is immoral to force people to continue living in suffering and pain. Moreover, death is a private
matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere. In
many countries, suicide is not a crime. In a similar way, euthanasia should not be a crime either.

Another argument in favour of euthanasia is that in most countries there is a shortage of health
resources. As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get speedy access
to the facilities they need for treatment. At the same time health resources are being used on
people who cannot be cured, and who, for their own reasons, would prefer not to continue living.
Allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it
would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live. (What are some arguments in
support of euthanasia?)

The opponents of euthanasia have their own arguments. Religious opponents of euthanasia
believe that every human being is the creation of God, and that this imposes certain limits on us.
To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us, is to deny God, and to deny God's rights over
our lives and his right to choose the length of our lives and the way our lives end. In addition,
human life is sacred because it's a gift from God. Therefore, the deliberate taking of human life
should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others.

Other opponents fear that if euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would be abused.
They argue that it is virtually impossible for legal bodies to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were
truly voluntary. A related concern is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people - the elderly,
lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

Last but not the least, some opponents of euthanasia emphasize that health-care providers have
professional obligations that prohibit killing. These opponents maintain that euthanasia is
inconsistent with the roles of nursing, caregiving, and healing. (Give some arguments against
euthanasia.)
Question: Discuss the concept of Animal Rights.

Answer: There is a great deal of confusion about what animal rights means. Animal rights are not
about putting animals above humans or giving animals the same rights as humans. Animal rights are
the belief that animals have a right to be free from oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans.
The fundamental idea behind them is that human good is not the only good, and nature is not here just
for human purposes. Animals have an intrinsic value separate from any value they have to humans
and are worthy of moral consideration. (What is meant by animal rights?)

The idea of animal rights may be difficult for some people to fully accept. This is because, throughout
the world, animals are abused and killed for a wide variety of socially acceptable purposes. Humans
use and exploit animals in various ways, including meat, milk, eggs, animal experimentation, fur,
hunting, and circuses. Here we see that the issue of animal rights is an applied ethical issue, in the
sense that there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand.

Following are the most common justifications for animal use:

a) Human superiority: Some individuals argue that humans are morally superior to animals
due to characteristics like higher intelligence, language abilities, and advanced moral
reasoning. They believe that these qualities justify humans' use of animals for various
purposes, such as food, research, and entertainment.
b) Utilitarianism: Critics of animal rights may adopt a utilitarian perspective, asserting that the
overall happiness and well-being of humans should be prioritized over the rights of individual
animals. They argue that animal use can lead to greater human benefits, such as medical
advancements or economic prosperity.
c) Property rights: Opponents argue that animals are property and that humans have the right
to use animals for their purposes. They believe that animals do not possess inherent rights
and that their treatment should be regulated by animal welfare standards rather than granting
them legal rights.
d) Practicality and feasibility: Some argue that implementing animal rights on a large scale is
impractical or even impossible. They contend that societies heavily rely on animal products
and industries, and transitioning away from animal use would cause significant economic
disruptions and challenges in feeding the growing global population.

Following are the responses that animal rights activists give against animal use:

a) Inherent value: Supporters of animal rights argue that animals have inherent value and
deserve moral consideration, regardless of their usefulness to humans. They believe that
animals have their own interests, can experience pleasure and suffering, and should be treated
with respect and compassion.
b) Sentience: Many animals, such as mammals, birds, and certain fish, are sentient beings
capable of experiencing pain, pleasure, emotions, and other subjective states. Advocates argue
that sentient beings should have the right to be free from unnecessary harm and exploitation,
just like human beings.
c) Moral consistency: Promoters of animal rights argue for moral consistency by asserting that
it is inconsistent to grant certain rights to humans while denying similar rights to animals.
They believe that if we acknowledge the moral worth of humans, we should also recognize the
moral worth of other sentient beings.
d) Environmental impact: Animal rights proponents emphasize the environmental impact of
animal agriculture and exploitation. They argue that reducing animal use and adopting plant-
based diets would alleviate environmental problems such as deforestation, greenhouse gas
emissions, and water pollution.
Question: Discuss the concept of Environmental Ethics.
Answer: Our present age is an age of ecological crisis. Species are dying out on a daily basis; air
quality is worsening in many cities; the earth’s protective ozone layer is thinning; we are creating
increasing amounts of trash with no place to put it; and large-scale emissions of carbon dioxide
and methane gases are increasing the earth’s temperature, leading to global warming and climate
change.
The recognition of ecological crisis has given birth to a new area of ethics called environmental
ethics. In general, environmental ethics is a systematic account of the moral relations between
human beings and their natural environment. Environmental ethics assumes that ethical norms
govern human behavior toward the natural world. A theory of environmental ethics, then, must
go on to explain what these norms are, to whom or to what humans have responsibilities, and
how these responsibilities are justified.
Theories of ethics try to answer the question, ‘How ought we to live?’. An environmental ethic
refers to our natural surroundings in giving the answer. It recognizes that we must protect the
environment. It opposes unsustainable practices, and seeks to protect wildlife from habitat loss,
pollution and climate change. Popular environmental campaigns include protecting the
rainforests from deforestation, protecting endangered species, reducing pollution, and fighting
climate change. (Define Environmental Ethics.)
There are two kinds of theories or viewpoints in environmental ethics. One is anthropocentric:
that is, it centers on human well-being. It holds that we should care about the environment
because it is ‘our’ environment. We should be concerned about the survival of various plant and
animal species because they matter to ‘us.’ However human beings have concerns other than the
environment too. We want a strong economy that will produce the goods, jobs and revenues we
desire. We like our cars and the highways we drive them on. We like air conditioning. We like the
comfort and ease that plastic products bring to our life. As a result, we weigh our concern for the
environment against these other concerns. The result is often a compromise, such as pollution
controls which are not as strong as they otherwise might be. Because of these compromises,
environmentalists have started arguing for radical changes in our moral and legal reasoning,
leading to alternative ways of looking at nature. (Write a short note on anthropocentricism in
environmental ethics.)
There is another way of looking at ecological crisis which is non-anthropocentric. This approach
is based on the view that human beings hold no special place in nature, that human good is not
the only good, and nature is not here just for human purposes. It holds that we should value
nature not because of its value to us but because of its inherent value. Nature itself or individual
natural objects have their own interests and goods independent of human interests, and therefore
deserve moral consideration. So, for example, the environment is important as it affects human
health, but the environment is also, in itself, worth protecting. Humans should think of themselves
as part of a wider community which includes not only all living things but also all members of the
ecological system including water, soil and air. To think of ourselves in this way is to reject the
view that we are masters of nature and that nature is there to be exploited by us. Instead, we must
think of ourselves as members of a team, living and working harmoniously with our teammates.
Thus, the crucial question in non-anthropocentric environmental ethics is not what benefits
individual human beings or the human community as whole, but what benefits the wider
ecological community as a whole. (Write a short note on non-anthropocentricism in
environmental ethics.)