Introduction

What this Ethics course is not…

• this is not Bsed values education
• this is not catechism
• this is not moral theology
• this is not a rulebook or instruction manual
What this Ethics course is about…
• good and bad
• right and wrong
• obeying rules
• pursuing ideals
• developing character
• “living morally”
 Root word of ethics
The root word of ethics is the Greek word êthos (ἦθος).

Meaning of êthos
• Character
• Custom
• Habit
• Way of life

➢ From êthos, the term ethikē (ἠθική) developed, which refers to the study of
character and moral conduct. This eventually entered Latin as ethica and then
English as ethics.
 Morality
The root word of morality comes from the
Latin word mōrēs (singular: mōs).
Meaning:
• Custom From mōrēs came:
• Manner • morālis → “pertaining to
• Habit customs or character”
• Social practice • morālitās → morality
• Way of behaving • English - morality
 Etymological definition of ethos & mores
➢Traditional manners, customs, usage,
character, conduct of a community or group,
which pertain to the group’s standards or
norms, or what is sometimes called the group’s
“system of values” which determines what is
good, right, or the proper way of living, of
acting, of doing.
 Clarification of Terminology

Ethics and Morals

•“Morals” refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to
describe acts that people perform.
➢ Morality originally refers to socially accepted customs and habitual
ways of acting, not abstract rules alone.
This is why:
• Morality is often culturally shaped
• Moral norms vary across societies
•“Ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking.
Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline
belonging to philosophy.
 Theoretical Definition of Ethics
• Should there be one theoretical definition of
ethics?
– there are several theories of ethics and,
– each theory is expounding a different
conception of what it means to live morally
❖ There are rival theoretical definitions of ethics
 Socrates’ Definition

▪ Socrates’ simple formulation

(“how we ought to live and
why”)
▪ any definition that goes beyond
Socrates’ definition is bound to
offend at least one of them.
 Searching questions of ethics?
Ethics is the branch of philosophy focused on moral
questions — what we ought to do, what is right or wrong,
and how to live a good life.
It asks questions such as:
➢ “What makes actions morally right?”
➢ “What obligations do we have to others?”
• Ethics is a practical branch of philosophy.
• Why is ethics practical?
• What is a philosophical activity in relation to ethics?
The activity of philosophizing

•It helps to foster independent thinking.

• (Our moral opinions are largely inherited from our
parents, peers, society at large.)

•Why be independent thinker?

• Moral or ethical questions are personal, such as:
How should I live my life? What kind of person
should I be?
One (practical) reason to think
philosophically about moral and
ethical issues

• To ensure that we are not

making similar mistakes.
REAL DEFINITION OF ETHICS

ETHICS is a philosophical discipline

that evaluates and judges moral issues
and moral dilemmas using moral
theories (framework), and, moral
principles in the aid of human reason
alone.
MORAL ISSUE

• A situation that calls for moral valuation can

be called a moral issue.
 MORAL DILEMMA

When one is torn between choosing one of two

goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils,
this is referred to as a moral dilemma.
 MORAL DECISION

When one is placed in a situation and

confronted by the choice of what act to
perform, s/he is called to make a moral
decision.
 MORAL JUDGMENT

When a person is an observer making an

assessment on the actions or behavior of
someone, s/he is making a moral judgment.
 Moral Principle
• Rationally established grounds by
which one justifies and maintains
her moral decisions and judgments.
 Moral Theory
• Is a systematic attempt to establish
the validity of maintaining certain
moral principles.
 Moral framework
• Framework can be defined as a
theory of interconnected ideas, and
at the same time, a structure through
which we can evaluate our reasons
for valuing a certain decision or
judgment.
 First Example: Baby Theresa
▪ Anencephalic infants: ‘babies without brains’
oCerebrum, cerebellum, and top of skull are
missing oHave a brain stem, thus autonomic
functions
(breathing, heartbeat, etc.) are possible
oUsually aborted in the US; otherwise, half are
stillborn and usually die within days
Baby Theresa’s parents volunteered her
organs for transplant.

Surprisingly few ethicists sided

with the parents and physicians.
 Moral Issue

• Should she have been killed so

that her organs could have
been used to save other
children?
 The Benefits Argument
▪ If we can benefit someone without harming
anyone else, we ought to do so.
▪ Transplanting the organs would benefit the
other children without harming Baby
Theresa.
Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.
The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing

▪ It is wrong to kill one person to save another.

▪ Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her
to save others.
So, taking the organs would be wrong.
 However. . .
? Shouldn’t there be an exception to the rule?
Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never ‘have a life’; she is
going to die soon anyway; and taking her organs would help other
babies.
? Should we regard Baby Theresa as already ‘dead’?
Perhaps we should revise our definitions of ‘death.’
What about Baby Theresa’s life?
? Isn’t being alive better than being dead?
Only if being alive allows one to ‘have a life’: to
carry on activities and have thoughts, feelings, and
relations with other people.

➢In the absence of such things,

‘mere biological life’ is worthless.
The Argument That We Should Not Use People as
Means

▪It is wrong to use people as means to other

people’s ends.
▪Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to
benefit other children.
Therefore, it should not be done.
 How is Baby Theresa being ‘used’?
? Vague sense of ‘use.’ What does it mean?
Violating Baby Theresa’s autonomy?
Baby Theresa has no autonomy to violate. She has
no preferences about anything, nor has she ever had
any.
Second Example: Jodie and Mary
▪ Conjoined twins, joined at the lower abdomen;
spines fused; one heart and one pair of lungs
between them.
▪ Without an operation to separate them, both
twins would die within six months.
▪ This would save Jodie, but Mary would die.
▪ The parents refused permission for the
operation, but courts okayed it.
▪ Jodie lived, and Mary died.
The Argument That We Should Save as Many as We Can

There is a choice: save one or let both die.

? Isn’t it plainly better to save one?
 Not from the parents’ perspective.
The Argument from the Sanctity of Human Life
▪ All human life is precious, regardless of
age, race, social class, or handicap.
▪ The prohibition against killing innocent
humans is absolute.
▪ Mary is an innocent human being.
Therefore, she should not be killed.
 However. . .
Mary would not be ‘killed’ during the operation
but merely separated from Jodie. Her death
would be due to her body’s inability to sustain
her life.
Perhaps it is not always wrong to kill innocent
human beings. . .
o If the innocent human has no future because she is
going to die soon no matter what. . . AND. . .
o She has no wish to go on living (perhaps because she
has no wishes at all). . . AND. . .
o This killing will save others who can go on to lead
‘full lives.’
Third Example: Tracy Latimer
▪ 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, killed by
her father with exhaust fumes while the rest
of the family were at church.
▪ Tracy weighed less than 40 lbs. and was
described as “functioning at the mental level
of a three-month-old baby.”
▪ Robert Latimer was sentenced to 10 years in
prison.
? Did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong? Wasn’t
killing her an act of mercy?
The Argument from the Wrongness of Discriminating
against the Handicapped

▪Handicapped people should be given the same respect and

the same rights as everyone else.
▪Tracy was killed because she was handicapped.
Therefore, killing her was wrong.
 However. . .
Tracy was not killed because of her
cerebral palsy but because of her pain and
suffering and because there was no hope
for her.
The Slippery Slope Argument
If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will
slide down a slippery slope, and in the end
all life will be held cheap. Where will we draw
the line?

? What about other disabled people, the elderly, the

infirm, and other ‘useless’ members of society?
 Beware of slippery slopes!
! This kind of argument is all too easy to
abuse.
If you are opposed to something but have no good
arguments against it, you can always make up a
prediction about what it might lead to; and no matter
how implausible your prediction is, no one can prove
you wrong.
• Rachels proposes a ‘minimum
conception’ of morality: a core that
every moral theory should accept,
at least as a starting point: REASON
& IMPARTIALITY
 Reason and Impartiality

▪ Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons.

▪ Morality requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interests.
 Moral Reasoning
▪ We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter
how powerful they might be.
▪ Our feelings may be irrational and may be
nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness,
or cultural conditioning.
▪ Our decisions must be guided as much as
possible by reason.
▪ The morally right thing to do is always the
thing best supported by the arguments.
How can we tell if an argument is really good?

 Get the facts straight.

 Bring moral principles into play.

Are they justified, and are they
being correctly applied?
The Requirement of Impartiality
▪ Each individual’s
interests are equally
important, and no one
should get special
treatment.
▪ If there is no good
reason for treating
people differently,
then discrimination is
unacceptably arbitrary.
 The Minimum Conception of Morality

▪ Morality is, at the very least, the effort to

guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do
what there are the best reasons for doing—
while giving equal weight to the interests of
each individual affected by one’s decision.
 The Conscientious Moral Agent. . .

▪ Is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone

affected by what he or she does.
▪ Carefully sifts facts and examines their implications.
▪ Accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to
make sure they are justified.
▪ Is willing to “listen to reason” even when it means revising
prior convictions.
▪ Is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.