BOOK NOTES

file:///C:/Users/acer/Downloads/[GEETHICS]%20Ethics_%20Theories%20and%20Applications%20by%20Francis%20Julius%20Evangelista,%20Napoleon%20Mabaquiao.pdf

LO 1 (Page 1 to 19)

  • Ethics - this philosophical discipline basically deals with humanity's inquiries about right conduct, the good life, moral values, and other related issues.

    • Engaging in ethics provides us with the opportunity to look into the reasons and justifications behind our own actions and the actions of others, the bases and principles of our decision-making, and the goals of our moral life in order to find clearer answers to the various moral issues and problems that we encounter in life.

    • The discipline that examines the moral standards of an individual or a society. In a sense, ethics is a study of morality. It looks into the soundness, reasonableness, and appropriateness of the moral standards a person or a society espouses.

  • Morality - the set of standards a person has about what is right and wrong. How we judge whether an act is good or bad

    • It is for this reason we can say that people can have different morality, that is, we can have different standards, views, or perspectives by which we understand what is right and wrong.

    • a particular society's standards of what is right and wrong. As a social, cultural, or religious group, people share certain standards of actions or behaviors that guide them in what they accept or practice.

  • Ethics vs morality

    • a person engages in ethics when he/she reflects on the moral standards he/she has imbibed from his/her family, church, and friends, and asks: "Are these standards reasonable? Are these practices morally permissible? Are we justified to do this or that?"

  • Area of ethics:

    • metaethics

      • analytic ethics, looks into the nature, meaning, scope, and foundations of moral values and discourses.

      • meta - after or beyond

      • what morality itself is; "second-order" moral theorizing

    • normative ethics

      • moral standards to determine right from wrong conduct

      • theories proposed to answer what moral standards should govern human action

        • consequentialism

        • deontology

        • virtue ethics

    • applied ethics

      • examine the particular issues in both personal and social spheres that are matters of moral judgment

    • descriptive ethics

      • endeavors to present to us whar people think about right and wrong, how they behave, or how they reason about ethics.

      • not a philosophical study of ethics since it does not aim to establish what should be the case

      • establishes what the case is

    • Anthropology asks how people in fact live

      • sociology is interested in morality in so far as it wants to find out the set of moral beliefs and practices that a particular group or society follows. It may even compare the moral beliefs of one culture to that of another. But it does not seek to establish whether this or that moral belief is sound or not.

    • Moral statement as normative statements

      • A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that claims that something ought to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment that claims that something is the case.

        • How things should be

  • A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that claims that something ought to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment that claims that something is the case.

  • moral standards vs non moral standards

    • the standards used to justify normative statements are not moral standards.

  • morality vs law, etiquette, and religion

    • Etiquette refers to the set of rules or customs that determine the accepted behaviors in a particular social group.

      • Etiquette is different from morality in that the former is concerned with proper behavior while the latter with right conduct.

      • Disregarding or scorning etiquette can be considered immoral in certain circumstances.

    • law regulates human conduct

      • following the law isn’t always morally right vice versa

    • religion is generally perceived to be the basis of morality

  • The view which holds that all moral principles are valid relative to a particular society or individual, is called ethical relativism. It is to be distinguished from ethical skepticism-which claims that there are no valid moral principles at all (or at least we cannot know whether there are any)-and from ethical objectivism which asserts that there are universally valid

    moral principles binding on all people.

    • According to the relativist perspective, the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the moral norms of society or the moral inclinations of the individual, and no absolute standard exists by which differing rules or inclinations can be judged.

  • 2 types of ethical relativism:

    • cultural ethical relativism/ethical conventionalism - the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society's norms.

    • individual ethical relativism /ethical subjectivism - the rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the individual's own commitments. holds that the basis of what is morally right or wrong ultimately lies on the person's own standard, and there is no objective standard outside the individual's perspective by which his/her moral belief or standard can be judged.

  • Conventionalism vs subjectivism

    • Conventionalism - rejects the existence of universal moral principles, it claims that there are valid moral principles justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance.

  • Attractions of ethical relativism

    • diversity argument - premised on factual or empirical claim that moral beliefs and moral rules vary culturally

    • dependency argument - moral beliefs are true or valid only relative to certain groups.

    • toleration argument

  • Morality is basically just the set of common rules, habits,and customs that have earned social approval over time. Every morality depends on a level of social acceptance.

  • toleration argument - acknowledging the differences among various societies in terms of their moral beliefs and practices leads to respect, social harmony, and peaceful co-existence among the different cultural, religious, and social groups.

  • Challenges of ethical relativism

    • illogical flow of the relativist argument

      • there can be cases when members of some societies may simply be mistaken of their beliefs

    • negative implications of accepting such theory

      • One implication of accepting ethical relativism is that it is senseless to criticize a particular cultural or social group's beliefor practice however abhorrent or inhumane it is.

      • Another implication of regarding social norms as the basis ofthe rightness or wrongness of our actions is that we simply have to conform to the norms of our own society toto know what action ought to be done

      • Moral progress will also be compromised if we follow the thesis of ethical relativism. If the rightness or wrongness of actions is judged solely on the basis of a culture's norms, how then can members of that society criticize these norms on moral grounds?

        • In many societies, the soundness of practices and laws that discriminate against women, such as honor killing or child marriages must be challenged. This can only be done if social norms themselves can be subjected to critical scrutiny, rather than regarded as the ultimate basis of morality. Our ability to question our social norms has made us overcome the inhuman practices of slavery in pre-Civil War United States, apartheid in South Africa, and the unfair denial of Right to Suffrage for women in the Philippine

    • despite the fact that some moral beliefs and practices vary among cultures, there are still universal moral standards that exist.

    • critics of relativism claim that indeed, societies may differ in their cultural practices, but the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not.

  • Consider the Buddhist practice of refraining from eating the meat of animals. It seems their moral values differ from non-Buddhist people. But it is important to look into the reason why they do not consume animals. Suppose it is because they believe that after death the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of animals so that it is possible that their loved ones may be in those animals. Can we say their moral values are different from those of non-Buddhists? No. The difference lies in their religious beliefs, not in their moral values.

  • The theory of ethical relativism raises a contentious issue in metaethics. It argues that the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the moral norms of society (cultural) or the person's moral inclinations (individual), and no absolute standard exists by which differing rules or inclinations can be judged.

Review Question

  1. Identify and explain the points raised against ethical relativism

    • Ethical relativism faces strong criticism from a few philosophers. To give an overview, the arguments raised are: 1) the theory’s illogical flow; 2) the negative implications it suggests ; 3) universal moral standards underlying each culture’s principles. Firstly, philosophers argue that diversity of and disagreement in moral beliefs do not prove morality’s relativity — as there are existing cases where society members are potentially misinformed about a particular practice or moral matter. An example of this is the story with Galileo Galilee and Copernicus, who pointed out that Earth revoles around the sun — a notion that was highly controversial during the time. Second, ethical relativism implies that criticism of a culture’s belief might fall as senseless, even if it involves cruel matters such as attacks in line with the culture’s religion. It leaves no room for examination, attributing and justifying acts within the culture’s moral standards — which might have an “inhumane” underlying principle. Additionally, it also implies that society has to conform to the pre-existing norms as basis of our rightness or wrongness, even when faced with internal clashing beliefs. If a person’s culture accepts sexism or even glorifies it, they must conform with it to be deemed moral in their culture’s standards — encouraging a hive mind. This denies moral progress, stagnating it instead of further progressing it; how can existing norms be changed, then? Lastly, the strongest point is how there are still universal moral standards that exist, even with different cultures. Fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not

Ethical relativism faces strong criticism from several philosophers. To give an overview, the main arguments raised are: (1) the theory’s illogical flow; (2) the harmful implications it suggests; and (3) the existence of universal moral standards underlying each culture’s principles. First, philosophers argue that moral disagreement across societies doesn’t necessarily prove that morality is relative —some people may simply be misinformed about certain practices. A relevant example is the case of Galileo Galilei and Copernicus, who argued that the Earth revolves around the sun which was a controversial claim in their time, though later proven true. Second, ethical relativism implies that we cannot criticize cultural beliefs, even when they involve cruelty, such as religiously motivated violence. It prevents moral scrutiny by justifying all actions within a culture’s standards, even those with inhumane foundations. It also forces individuals to conform to pre-existing norms to be considered moral, even when those norms clash with personal beliefs, like in a culture that accepts or glorifies sexism. This halts moral progress, leading us to ask how society can evolve if existing norms are off-limits to critique. Lastly, a strong point against ethical relativism is that despite cultural differences, certain universal moral standards still persist, such as the value placed on fairness, compassion, and the protection of innocent lives. For instance, while Buddhists avoid eating meat due to the belief that animals may house the souls of loved ones, the core value behind this practice or respect for life — reflecting a moral principle shared across many cultures, even if rooted in different worldviews.