Introduction to Basic Ethics
Basic Ethics Terminology
Legal vs. Ethical vs. Moral
It is crucial to understand the distinctions between legal, ethical, and moral considerations. These terms do not have the same meaning, and mistaking them for synonyms can lead to confusion when analyzing complex situations.
Legal: This refers to whether an action is socially illicit or illicit, essentially whether it is against the law as codified in a set of guiding principles with associated punishments for non-compliance. Legality varies across jurisdictions, meaning an action legal in one place may not be legal in another. Therefore, legality cannot be equated with ethics or morality.
Moral: Morality generally concerns the distinction between good and bad, particularly in terms of intentions and desired outcomes. It focuses on whether we are trying to do the right thing and achieve positive ends, such as improving relationships or benefiting others. Morality deals with the ends we aim for.
Ethical: Ethics pertains to the actions we take to reach moral ends. It involves determining the right and wrong actions, especially when aiming for a worthwhile moral goal within a legal framework. Ethical considerations place limits on the actions that can be taken. For example, a psychotherapist cannot engage in a sexual relationship with a patient, even if it might make the patient feel better, because it violates professional ethical standards.
The ethical sphere concerns itself with the actions that we take to reach those ends.
A Priori vs. A Posteriori Methodologies
Ethical methodologies can be categorized as either a priori or a posteriori. These terms relate to whether conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of actions are drawn before or after considering context and consequences.
A Priori: A priori methodologies allow for actions to have intrinsic moral status, meaning certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of context or consequences. Deontology and natural law are examples of a priori methodologies. For instance, some killings may be considered murder and intrinsically wrong.
A Posteriori: A posteriori methodologies argue that actions are essentially neutral, and their rightness or wrongness depends on the consequences, context, or situation. Utilitarianism and consequentialism are examples of a posteriori methodologies. For example, lying to Nazis to protect Jews hidden in an attic might be considered morally permissible because of the positive consequences.
The line of demarcation, a priori methodologies argue actions can have intrinsic moral status. A posteriori actions argue that actions are essentially neutral and that outcomes or context or circumstance make them right or wrong.
Agent Relative vs. Agent Neutral
The distinction between agent relative and agent neutral ethics concerns whether the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the relationship the agent has with those affected.
Agent Relative: Agent-relative ethics consider the agent's relationships and specific duties. Obligations to family members, for instance, and friends may differ from obligations to strangers. Virtue ethics can be agent relative, allowing for preferential treatment based on relationships.
Agent Neutral: Agent-neutral ethics require impartiality, without regard to relationships. Methodologies like utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number, and deontology, which focuses on objective duties, are agent neutral.
For instance, given an extra thousand dollars, an agent-neutral utilitarian approach might require donating to a charity benefiting many orphans, while an agent-relative approach might allow giving the money to a friend in need, thus showing loyalty and performing a charitable action.
Metaethics and Levels of Analysis
Metaethics deals with foundational questions about ethics, such as whether we can know what is good or possess moral knowledge. It operates at a higher level of analysis than specific ethical methodologies.
Levels of Analysis:
Metaethical Issues: Foundational agreements about the meaning of ethical concepts.
Ethical Methodologies: The application of specific ethical frameworks.
Value Judgments: Actual value judgments based on methodologies and specific situations.
To illustrate, consider mathematics. Agreeing on what numbers mean is essential before working with equations. Similarly, foundational metaethical issues must be addressed before applying ethical methodologies and making value judgments.
Relativism
Relativism posits that beliefs and values are relative and can vary between individuals, cultures, and time periods. There are several types of relativism:
Cultural Relativism: Argues that moral beliefs and practices differ across cultures, and no culture can judge another. However, there are challenges to this view, such as the existence of cultural universals like prohibitions against arbitrary killing and incest.
Differences often lie in practices rather than fundamental principles. For example, different cultures may have varying ways of caring for the elderly, but the underlying principle of honoring and respecting the elderly remains similar.
Temporal Relativism: Also known as presentism or antipresentism, suggests that past cultures should not be judged by present standards. This view can challenge the notion of progress, as it argues that we cannot objectively say that people are better off now than in the past without an objective measuring stick.
Individual Relativism: The belief that each person has their own moral code, and no one can judge another's beliefs. This view is problematic because it undermines the possibility of meaningful ethical discussions and the ability to critique harmful actions or beliefs.
The existence of disagreement does not mean all opinions are valid.
Relativism can be a useful tool for introspection, prompting us to examine the reasons behind our beliefs and cultural practices. It encourages questioning whether our opinions are based on objective truth or historical and cultural influences.
Absolutism
Metaethical absolutism asserts that it is possible for human agents to know right from wrong. It does not claim that an action is always right or wrong but rather that humans can possess moral knowledge.
Metaethical absolutism is distinct from moral absolutism, which makes definitive judgments about the rightness or wrongness of specific actions.
Absolutism is a necessary assumption for ethical methodologies like deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, as these frameworks rely on the possibility of knowing and applying moral principles.