ETH 201 Lecture Intro, Fall 2016

as Sts Shs dhs Sha dhs Aes Shs Shs dhs Ss dhs hs dhs hs dhe Rs dhs chs Sez ahs Az dha hs dhe hs Ache Az ahs Sis chs dhs dhs is ahs is als ols ahs as ys as sas aw ols as os az aS ie 5 dz tS 5 az aS 5 as As S 5 es is 8 3 is ie & a az i az > UR a az Fy a2 = , 8 as 5 ae ie | 3 ae aS = a & a) s 3 aS 8 q2 oS = a3 iz S is Se 5 a a 3 a de z iz as 3 a3 a & as dada da dade ds dada de he shade ds hs dade ds ds he de dade leds te lade da he ds ds ds ds ds dads ds da dade ds dads dade dade de DOMAINS OF ETHICAL ASSESSMENT At this point, it might seem that ethics concerns itself entirely with rules of con- duct that are based solely on evaluating acts. However, it is more. complicated than that. Most ethical analysis falls into one or more of the following domains: (1) action, (2) consequences, :(3)..character, ,and (4) motive. -Again,_all. chese domains will be examined in detail in later chapters, but.an overview here will be helpful. . Let’s examine .these domains using:an altered. version. of. the Kitty. Genovese story. Suppose a man attacks a woman in front-of her apartment and is about to kill her. A responsible neighbor hears the struggle, calls the police, and shouts from the window “Hey you, get out of here!” Startled by.the neighbor's repri- mand, the attacker lets go of the woman-and runs down the street where he is caught by the police. ; Action One way of ethically assessing this situation is to examine the actions of both the attacker and the good neighbor: The attacker's actions were wrong whereas the neighbor's actions were right. The term right has two meanings. Sometimes, it means “obligatory” (as in “the right act”), but it also can mean “permissible” WHAT'S ETHICS? 49 } : ora “aunyy ta. ‘reftain fiom. doing: ig ndt ‘permissible.to'do it: In our example, thé. attacker's assault’ on: the woman was clearly 4: ‘wrong action (prohibited); ;by ¢ contrast; the neighbor's act. of, calliig the: police was. clearly’ a right actions: and. an obligatory oné:at that, | . But; some: acts ‘do not seeni. ‘either obligatory or: “wrong: ‘Whiethet you. take a ‘Course iii art history“or- English literature’ or whethér you writé'a, letter’ “with a pencil:o ‘pen. scems morally neutral. “Bither is permissible. Whether you. listen to rock music‘or classical music-is not usually. considered morally significant. Lis- tening to both i is allowed, and néithet i is obligatory, Whether you marry‘or remain sirigle. i is:an-important decision about how' to live your life. The decision. you réach, however, is usually considered morally neutral or optional: Under most cir-, cumstances, to matry (or, not to marry) is considered neither obligatory nor wrong: but permissible, Within the range of permissible acts is the notion of supererogatory acts, or highly altruistic acts, These acts are neither required nor obligatory, but they exceed what morality requires, going “beyond the call of duty.” For example, sup~ pose the responsible neighbor ran outsidé to actually confront the attacker rather than simply shout at-him from the window. Thus, the neighbor would assume an ~extra-zisk that would not bé morally required. Similarly, while you may_ be obli- gated to give a donation to help people in dire need, you would not be obligated to sell your car, let alone become impoverished yourself, to help them. The com- plete scheme of acts, then, is this: 1. Right act (permissible) a. Obligatory act b. Optional act (1) Neutral act (2) Supererogatory act 2. Wrong act (not permissible) One important kind of ethical theory that emphasizes the nature of the act is called deontological (from the Greek word deon, meaning “duty”). These theories hold that something is inherently right or good about such acts as truth telling and promise keeping and inherently wrong or bad about such acts as lying and promise breaking. Classical deontological ethical principles include the Ten 10 CHAPTER 1 Commandments and ‘the Golden Rule...Perhaps the. leading: proponent of deon= tological ethics in recent centuries is Immanuel Kant. (1724-1 804), who defended a principle of moral duty that he-calls, the categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim. whereby you can at the same: ‘time’ will that it woul beconiera' u i- mit. ‘siticide” ‘What: all. of. these deontol -common. is the- view. that we have. an inherent: duty” to perform right: actions~ _ and. ayoid bad actions. ’. Consequences. Another way of ethically assessing situations. is-to’ éxamine the consequetices of! an action: If the consequences -are ‘on balance positive, thesi- thé-action i is: tight; if negative, then wrong. In our. example, take the: -consequences. of the attacker’s actions. At minimum: he ‘physically harms the woman: and ‘psy> chologically traumatizes both her and her neighbors; ifthe succeeds-in-killing:: her, then he emotionally devastates her family and. friends, pethaps: for, life; And what doés he gain from this? Just a temporary experience of sadistic plea- : sure. On balance, his action has overwhelmingly negative consequeices and thus is wrong. Examine next the consequences of the responsible; neiglibor wha calls the police and shouts down from the window “Hey you, get out of here!” This scares off the attacker, , thus limiting the harm of his ‘assault. What does the neighbor lose by doing this? Just a temporary experience of fear, which the neighbor might have experienced anyway. On balance, then, the neighbor’s action has overwhelmingly positive. consequences, which makes it the right thing to do. Ethical theories that focus primarily on consequences in ‘determining moral rightness and wrongness are called teleological ethics (from the Greek. telos, meaning “goal directed”). The most famous of these theories is utilitarianism; set forth by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), which requires us to do what is likeliest to have the best consequences. In -Mill’s words, “Actions are right in proportion as they.tend to:promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Character Whereas some ethical theories emphasize the nature of actions in themselves and some emphasize principles involving the ‘consequences of actions, other theories emphasize character; or virtue. In our example, the attacker has an-especially. bad character trait—namely, malevolence—which taints his entire. outlook-on life and predisposes him to act in harmful ways: The attacker is a bad person princi- pally for having this‘bad character trait of malevolence. The responsible neighbor, on the other hand, has a good character trait, which directs his outlook on life— namely, benevolence, which is the tendency to treat people with kindness and assist those in need.-Accordingly, the neighbor is a good person largely for pos-. sessing this good trait. WHATISEtTHICS? 44 -.-Moral- philosophers: call such good-charactet’ traits virtues: ‘and.bad’ traits vices. Entife theories of. morality have. been. developed from! these ‘notions and. are: ‘called virtue theories. The. classic | Proponent of virtue, ene was: Aristiolte ; dency t to ‘do od. Many ali ‘know that. cheating: et dh or orev in food of alcohols wrong, but they are incapable of: doing what is; tight i ous people spontaneously do.the right thing and may not even consciously folkiw. - thoral rules’ when: doing. so. Motive: Finally, we gan ethically assess situations by. examining the motivé of the:peo- ple involved: The attacker inténded to ‘brutalize. and kill. the woman; the neighbor intended j to thwart the attacker atid thereby help the woman. Virtn: ally all ethical systems recognize ‘the i importarice of motives. For a, full assess-; ment ‘of any action, it is important to take the agent's intention into account. ‘Two acts may-appear identical onthe surface, but one may be judged: ‘morally: blaméworthy and. the ‘other excusable. Consider John’s pushing Mary off.a, ‘ledge, causing her’ to’ break -her leg. In’situation (A), he is-angry ‘and intends to harm her,, but in situation (B) he sees a knife’ flying in her direction and intends to save her life. In (A) he clearly did the wrong thing, whereas in (B) he did the right thing. A fall moral description of any act will take motive into account as‘a relevant factor. CONCLUSION The study of ethics has enormous practical benefits. It can free us from prejudice and dogmatism. It sets forth comprehensive systems from which to orient our individual judgments. It carves up the moral landscape so that we can sort out the issues to think more clearly and confidently about moral problems. It helps us clarify in our minds just how our principles and values relate to one another, and, most of all, it gives us some guidance in how to live. Let’s return to questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, some of which we should now be able’ to’ better answer. ; What is the nature of morality, and why do we need it? Morality concerns discovering the rules that promote the human good, as elaborated in the five traits’ of moral principles: prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, publicity, and practicability. Without morality, we cannot promote that good. What is the good, and how will I know it? The good in question is the human good, specified as happiness, reaching one’s potential, and so forth. What- ever we decide on that fulfills human needs and helps us develop our deepest potential is the good that morality promotes.