Ethics - Jamos Fieser

I share with you this wonderful article written by Jamos Fieser, which describes the ethic of a simple and didactic.

Ethics

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves the systematic, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. They are merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Meta-ethical answer to these questions focus on issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these contentious issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-government and the right to life, which are the fire tests to determine the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on issues such as meta-ethical ", where the rights do not come?" And "what kind of beings have rights?"


1. Metaethics

The term "meta" which means after or beyond, and hence the notion of metaethics involves a withdrawal, or aerial view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared with normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers the issues of moral semantics for moral epistemology. Two issues, however, stand out: (1) metaphysical questions about whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues related to the underlying mental and our moral judgments and conduct.

a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and relativism
Metaphysics is the study of the types of things that exist in the universe. Some things in the universe are made of physical material such as stones and other things that maybe are not physical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits and gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics involves finding specifically moral values are eternal truths that exist in the mind as a kingdom, or simply human conventions. There are two general directions that discussions on this subject take, another world and one of the world.

Proponents of this world view usually argue that moral values are objective in the sense that they exist in a similar spirit realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also claim they are absolute, or eternal, which never changes, and also that they are universal, in that it applies to all rational creatures in the world and throughout time. The most dramatic example of this vision is Plato, who was inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at the numbers and mathematical relationships, such as 1 1 = 2, they seem to be timeless concepts that never change, and apply throughout the universe. Humans do not make up numbers, and humans can not change them. Plato explained the eternal character of mathematical, affirming that they are abstract entities that exist in a similar spirit realm. He noted also that moral values are absolute truths and therefore are also abstract, entidades.Nesse spirit and sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped together all moral principles under the title "eternal law", which were also often seen as the spirit of similar objects. 17th century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described as a spirit, such as relationships, rather than spirit-like objects. In both cases, however, that exist in a similar spirit realm. Another world different approach to the metaphysical status of morality is divine commandments issued by God's will. Sometimes called voluntarism (or divine command theory), this vision was inspired by the notion of an almighty God who is in control of everything. God just wants things, and they become reality. He wants the physical world into existence, he wants life to exist and, also, he wants all moral values into existence. Proponents of this view, as the medieval philosopher William of Ockham, God wants us to believe that moral principles, such as "murder is wrong," and they exist in God's mind as commands. God informs human implanting of these commands us with the moral intuitions or disclose these commands in scripture.

The second and more mundane approach to the metaphysical status of morality follows the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by the Greek philosopher Sextus, and denies the objective status of moral values. Technically, the skeptics do not reject the moral values themselves, but only denied that there are values and the spirit of similar objects, or as divine commandments in God's mind. The moral values, they argued, are strictly human invention, a position which has been called relativism moral.Existem two forms of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which maintains that individuals create their own moral standard. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, argued that the superhuman create your distinctly and moral reaction to slavery as a system of values of the masses. The second is cultural relativism which holds that morality is based on the approval of society itself - and not just in people's preferences. This view was supported by the Sixth, and in more recent centuries by Michel de Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. Besides defending the skepticism and relativism, this world approaches to the metaphysical status of moral character to deny the absolute and universal morality and hold instead that moral values actually change from society to society over time and across the world. They often attempt to defend his position, citing examples of values that differ radically from one culture to another, as attitudes about polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice.

b. Psychology and metaethics

A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgments and conduct, in particular to understand what motivates us to be moral. We could explore this issue, the simple question: "Why be moral?" Even though I am aware of moral standards, such as not killing and not stealing, it does not necessarily mean that I am psychologically compelled to act on them. Some responses to the question "Why be moral?" Are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to achieve happiness, to be worthy or fit in with society.

i. Egoism and altruism
An important area of moral psychology says the selfishness inherent in being human. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes considered that many if not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, as giving to charity, there are selfish reasons for this, as having power over others. This view is called psychological egoism and argues that self-oriented interests motivate all ultimately human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism is the view that pleasure is the driving force behind all of our specific actions. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler agreed that the instinctive selfishness and pleasure to command much of our conduct. However, Butler argues that we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show kindness to others.This view is called psychological altruism and argues that at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.

ii. Emotion and Reason
A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute over the role of reason in motivating moral action. If, for example, I take the phrase "abortion is morally wrong," I am making a rational assessment or just express my feelings? On one side of the dispute, 18th century British philosopher David Hume argued that moral evaluations involve our emotions, not our reason. We can gather all the reasons we want, but that alone does not constitute a moral evaluation. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason may be helpful in giving us the relevant data, but in the words of Hume, the reason is, and should be the slave of passions. " Inspired by Hume's anti-rationalist views, some philosophers of the 20th century, especially AJ Ayer, similarly denied that moral evaluations are descriptions factuais.Por example, although the statement "it is good to donate to charity" on the surface may appear to be a factual description of the charity is not. Instead, a moral discourse as this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I am expressing my personal feelings of approval on charitable donations and I am saying in essence "Hooray for charity!" This is called the emotional element in that I am expressing my emotions over some specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am trying to take him to donate to charity, and essentially I am giving the command, "donate to charity!" This is called the normative element in the sense that I am prescribing a specific behavior.

From the first day of Hume forward, more rationally-minded philosophers opposed to such emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics), and instead argued that moral evaluations are in fact acts of reason. 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is one example. Although emotional factors often do not influence our conduct, he argued, however, we must resist this type of influência.Em Instead, the true moral action is motivated only by reason, when it is free from emotions and desires. A recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was proposed in direct opposition to the theories and emotivist prescriptivists of Ayer and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and argumentation, which occurs when making moral choices. All our moral choices are, or at least can be supported by any reason or justification. If I say that it is wrong to steal someone's car, so I should be able to justify my request with some kind of argument. For example, I could argue that Smith's car theft is wrong because it bothered him, violate their property rights, or the thief put at risk of being caught. According to Baier, then, moral decision right decision involves giving the best reasons to support a course of action against another.

iii. Male and Female in the context of Morality
A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly feminine approach to ethics which is based on psychological differences between men and women. Discussion on this issue focuses on two claims: (a traditional morality) is sexist, and (2) there is a unique perspective of the female world, which can be molded into a theory of value. According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is sexist because it is modeled on practices that have been traditionally dominated by men, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules necessary for trade and government were taken as models for creating systems also rigid moral rules, lists of rights and duties. Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role in raising children and supervise the domestic life. Such tasks require less the following rule, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the experience of women as a model for moral theory, then the basis of morality would be natural to care for others, as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance. In this model, the agent becomes part of the situation and act with care in this context. This contrasts with the male-fashioned morality, where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his duty required, but can stay away and not affected by the situation. The approach to morality based on care, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethics either as a substitute for or a supplement to traditional male moral systems modeled.

2. Normative Ethics
Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, is a quest for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do unto others as we would have others do to us.Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal his car. Since I want people to feed me if I was starving, so I should help feed hungry people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically possible to determine if any action is right or wrong. Thus, based on the Golden Rule, it would be wrong for me to lie, harass, victimize, assault or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of fundamental principles, or set of traits of good character.

The fundamental assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, if a single rule or set of principles. Three strategies be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) theories of law, and (3) consequentialist theories.

a. Virtue Theories
Many philosophers believe that morality consists precisely defined the following rules of conduct, such as "no kill" or "do not steal." Presumably, I should learn these rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue ethics, however, places less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (see moral). After having acquired the grace, for example, I then usually act in a benevolent way. Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, who were later called the cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-esteem, good humor and sincerity.Besides defending the good habits of character, virtue theorists argue that we should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice and vanity.Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in the very juventude.Os adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling virtues in young people.

Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate our emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, must develop the virtue of courage that allows me to be firm when facing situations perigo.Analisando 11 specific virtues, Aristotle said that most virtues fall at an average between the character traits more extreme. With courage, for example, if I have no courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice, which is an addiction. If I have much courage I develop the disposition of recklessness that is also an addiction.According to Aristotle, is not an easy task to find the perfect medium between extreme character traits. In fact, we need help of our reason for doing this. Following Aristotle, medieval theologians completed Greek lists of the three Christian virtues, or the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity. The interest in virtue theory continued through the Middle Ages and declined in the 19th century with the emergence of alternative theories in moral low. In theory because of the mid 20th century has received special attention from philosophers who believed that the more recent approaches ethical theories were wrong to focus too much on rules and actions, instead of virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) defended the central role in the theory of moral virtues and claimed that virtues are based on and arises in social traditions.

b. Theories

Many of us feel that there are clear obligations that we as human beings, such as caring for our children and not to commit murder. Moral duty based on specific theories, the basic principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called ethics, from the Greek word deon, or should, given the fundamental nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called non-consequentialist since these principles are mandatory, regardless of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong not to care for our children, even if it results in some great benefits such as financial savings. There are four central theories duty.

The first is that advocated by 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who called dozens of functions into three categories: duty to God, to ourselves, rights and duties to others.Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two types:

a theoretical right to know the existence and nature of God and
a right to practice both internally and externally to worship God.
As for our duties to ourselves, these are also two types:

duties of the soul, involving the development of skills and talents and
body functions, involving not harm our body as we can through gluttony or drunkenness, not kill yourself.
As for our duties to others, Pufendorf divides between those absolute rights, which are universally binding on people and conditional functions, which are the result of contracts between people. Absolute rights are of three types:

avoid wronging others,
treating people as equals;
promote the welfare of others.
Rights conditional involve various types of agreements, chief among which is the duty is to keep a promise.

A second approach to duty ethics is the theory of rights. More generally, a "right" is a justified claim against the conduct of another person - like my right not to be harmed by you (see also human rights). Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of a person means the obligations of another pessoa.Por example, if I am entitled to the payment of $ 10 by Smith, then Smith has an obligation to pay me $ 10. This is called the correlation of rights and duties.The report's most influential theory of rights is that 17th century British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we must not jeopardize anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights given to us by God. In response to Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three fundamental rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and the rights of other theorists have argued that other more specific rights deduce from them, including property rights, movement, speech and religious expression. There are four characteristics traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural in that they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal in that do not change from country to country. Third, they are alike in the sense that rights are the same for all people, regardless of gender, race or disability. Fourthly, they are inalienable, meaning that I do not pass your hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling me to slavery.

A right based third theory is that for Kant, one that emphasizes the principle of dever.Influenciado by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing a talent, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is a more fundamental rights, which includes our specific duties. It is a unique self-evident principle of reason which he calls the "categorical imperative". "A categorical imperative, he says, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that rely on a personal desire we have, for example," If you want to get a good job, then you should go to college. "By contrast, a categorical imperative simply an action mandates, regardless of his personal desires, such as:" You should do X. "Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative, but a special law is: Treat people as ends, never as a means to an end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end where our actions toward someone reflect the intrinsic value of the person. donating to charity, for example, is morally right, because it recognizes the inherent value of the recipient.Rather, we treat someone as a means to an end, whenever we deal with this person as a tool to achieve something more. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car since I would treat it as a means for my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would treat my life as a means to relieve my misery. Kant believes that moral all actions can be determined by this principle of law only.

A right fourth and most recent, based on theory is that by the British philosopher WD Ross, who emphasizes the prima facie rights. Like their colleagues in the 17th and 18th centuries, Ross argues that our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of the universe." However, Ross's list of rights is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions:

Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
Gratitude: the duty to thank all those who help us
Justice: the duty to recognize merit
Beneficence: the duty to improve conditions for other
Self-improvement: the duty of improving our strength and intelligence
Non-maleficence: the duty not to harm others
Ross recognizes that situations that arise when we have to choose between two conflicting rights. In a classic example, suppose I lend my neighbor's gun and promise to return it when he calls. One day, in a fit of anger, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so he can get back at someone. On the one hand, the duty of loyalty requires me to return the gun, on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence requires me to avoid hurting others and therefore does not return the gun. According to Rose, I'll intuitively know what these rights, it is my royal duty, and it is my duty apparent or prima facie.Neste case, my duty to nonmaleficence emerges as my real duty and must return the weapon .

c. Consequentialist theories
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility, weighing the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialism, right moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences of an action:

Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that first record both good and bad consequences of an action. Secondly, we must then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the consequences are much greater, then the action is morally correct. If the bad consequences are greater, the action is morally inappropriate.Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the outcome of the action is the sole determinant of its morality.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by the philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally evaluate an action drawing on the experience, instead of appealing to intuition or gut long lists of functions questionable. Indeed, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it calls publicly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are formulated with greater precision than the general principle above. In particular, the competing theories consequentialist specify the consequences for the people in question are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.
Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
Utilitarianism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people.But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also get different conclusions. Consider the following example. A woman was traveling through a developing country, when she witnessed a car in front of her off the road and rolled several times. She asked the driver to pull over to hired help, but to his surprise, the driver accelerated past the cena.Algumas nervously miles down the road the driver explained that in his country, if someone watches a victim of the accident, then the police often arrest the person responsible for assisting accident itself. If the victim dies, then the person watching could be blamed for the death. The driver went on to explain that victims of road accidents are therefore generally neglected and often die from exposure to harsh desert conditions of the country. On the principle of ethical egoism, the woman in this illustration only worry about the consequences of his attempt to help as it would be affected. Clearly, the decision on the unit would be the morally right choice. On the ethical principle of altruism, would be concerned only with the consequences of its action as others are affected, especially the victims of the accident.Registering only reveals the consequences that attend the victim would be the morally right choice, regardless of adverse consequences for her. The principle of utilitarianism, it should consider the consequences for both herself and the victim. The result is less clear, the woman will have to calculate precisely the situation would benefit versus your overall action.

i. Types of utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham had one of the first fully developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham proposed agreement that the consequences of every action we perform and so determine, case by case, whether an action is morally right or wrong.This aspect of Bentham's theory is known as ACT-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed agreement that pleasure and pain that results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our moral conduct. This aspect of Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both respects.

Firstly, to act according to utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, because our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But the leisure activities that prohibits not seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions would offset the situation.