Ethical and Moral Philosophy Sources of Our Moral Values Family Moral Values.

70
Ethical and Moral Philosophy

Transcript of Ethical and Moral Philosophy Sources of Our Moral Values Family Moral Values.

Ethical and Moral Philosophy

Sources of Our Moral Values

Family

Moral Values

Sources of Our Moral Values

Family

Moral Values

Religion

Education

Sources of Our Moral Values

Family

Moral Values

Culture

Religion

Personality

Education

Sources of Our Moral Values

Family

Moral Values

Culture Leadership/Mentors

Religion

Personality

Education

Sources of Our Moral Values

Family

Moral Values

Culture Leadership/Mentors

Religion

Experience Personality

Education

Sources of Our Moral Values

Family

Moral Values

Culture Leadership/Mentors

Religion

Experience Personality

Reflection

Education

Ethical Systems and Schools of

Thought

Rule Based: Deontology

Ends-Based: Teleology

Care-Based:

Situational

Ethical Systems

DeontologyDeontological ethics (from the Greek Deon meaning obligation) or Deontology is an ethical theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others. Deontology posits the existence of a priori moral obligations, further suggesting that people ought to live by a set of permanently defined principles that do not change merely as a result of a change in circumstances.

Ethical Systems and Schools of

Thought

Ethical Systems

Teleology Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which any action might have (for that reason, they are often referred to as consequentalist moral systems, and both terms are used here). Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices. When we make choices which result in the correct consequences, then we are acting morally; when we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then we are acting immorally.

Rule Based: Deontology Ends-Based:

Teleology

Care-Based:

Situational

Ethical Systems and Schools of

Thought

Ethical Systems

Ethic of Care The ethics of care is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of relationships. The basis of the theory is the recognition of: 1) The interdependence of all individuals for achieving their interests; 2) The belief that those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to the level of their vulnerability to one's choices and the level of their affectedness by one's choices and no one elses; 3) The necessity of attending to the contextual details of the situation in order to safeguard and promote the actual specific interests of those involved.result in the incorrect consequences, then we are acting immorally.

Care-Based:

Situational

Rule Based: Deontology

Ends-Based: Teleology

Ethical Systems and Schools of Thought

The Grand Mean

Categorical Imperative

Utilitarianism

Situational Relativism

Devine Command

Justice

Egoism

Ethical Systems

Rule Based: Deontology

Ends-Based: Teleology

Care-Based: Situational

Cultural Relativism

Moral Values

Personal Code of Ethics

Ethical Systems and Schools of Thought

Law

Our Personal Code of Ethics

Professional Ethics

Personal Code of Ethics

Leadership

Business Ethics

Corporate Citizenship

Social Change

Making a Difference Through Leadership

Ethical Systems

Ethical Perspectives

Teleology

Deontology

Moral Relativism

The Relativist Perspective Defines ethical behavior subjectively from the

experiences of individuals and groups Relativists use themselves or those around them as their

basis for defining ethical standards A positive group consensus indicates that an action is

considered ethical by the group Acknowledges that we live in a society in which people

have different views There are many different bases from which to justify a

decision as right or wrong

Deontology

Adapted from: Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D. http://ethics.sandiego.edu/

Aristotle and the Ethics of Virtue

Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Divine Command

Deontology Focuses on the rights of the individual, not consequences

(considers intentions) Believes in equal respect and views certain behaviors as

inherently right Proposes that individuals have certain inherent freedoms

Freedoms: conscience, consent, privacy, speech and due process

Rule deontologist Conformity to general moral principles

Act deontologists Evaluate ethicalness based on the act

Virtue Strength of character

(habit) Involving both feeling

and action Seeks the mean between

excess and deficiency relative to us

Promotes human flourishing

Aristotle

Virtues and Spheres of Existence

Sphere of Existence Deficiency Mean Excess

Attitude toward self Servility Self-deprecation

Proper Self-Love Proper Pride Self-Respect

Arrogance Conceit Egoism

Narcissism Vanity

Attitude toward offenses of others

Ignoring them Being a Doormat

Anger Forgiveness

Understanding

Revenge Grudge

Resentment Attitude toward good

deeds of others Suspicion

Envy Ignoring them

Gratitude Admiration

Over indebtedness

Attitude toward our own offenses

Indifference Remorselessness

Downplaying

Agent Regret Remorse

Making Amends Learning from them

Self-Forgiveness

Toxic Guilt Scrupulosity

Shame

Attitude toward our friends

Indifference

Loyalty

Obsequiousness

Spheres of Existence--2Attitude toward our

own good deeds Belittling

Disappointment

Sense of Accomplishment

Humility

Self-righteousness

Attitude toward the suffering of others

Callousness

Compassion

Pity “Bleeding Heart”

Attitude toward the achievements of

others

Self-satisfaction Complacency Competition

Admiration Emulation

Envy

Attitude toward death and danger

Cowardice

Courage

Foolhardiness

Attitude toward our own desires

Anhedonia

Temperance Moderation

Lust Gluttony

Attitude toward other people

Exploitation

Respect

Deferentiality

Two Conceptions of Morality

We can contrast two approaches to the moral life. The childhood conception of morality:

Comes from outside (usually parents). Is negative (“don’t touch that stove burner!”). Rules and habit formation are central.

The adult conception of morality. Comes from within (self-directed). Is positive (“this is the kind of person I want to be.”). Virtue-centered,often modeled on ideals.

The Purpose of Morality Both of these conceptions of morality are

appropriate at different times in life. Adolescence and early adulthood is the time when

some people make the transition from the adolescent conception of morality to the adult conception.

Rightly-ordered Desires Aristotle draws an interesting contrast between:

Continent people, who have unruly desires but manage to control them.

Temperate people, whose desires are naturally—or through habit, second-nature—directed toward that which is good for them.

Weakness of will (akrasia) occurs when individuals cannot keep their desires under control.

The Goals of Moral Education

Moral education may initially seek to control unruly desires through rules, the formation of habits, etc.

Ultimately, moral education aims at forming rightly-ordered desires, that is, teaching people to desire what is genuinely good for them.

Virtue As the Golden Mean Strength of character (virtue), Aristotle suggests,

involves finding the proper balance between two extremes. Excess: having too much of something. Deficiency: having too little of something.

Not mediocrity, but harmony and balance.

Virtue and Habit For Aristotle, virtue is something that is

practiced and thereby learned—it is habit (hexis).

This has clear implications for moral education, for Aristotle obviously thinks that you can teach people to be virtuous.

Courage

The strength of character necessary to continue in the face of our fears Deficiency: Cowardice, the inability to do what is

necessary to have those things in life which we need in order to flourish Too much fear Too little confidence

Excess Too little fear Too much confidence Poor judgment about ends worth achieving

Courage

Both children and adults need courage. Without courage, we are unable to take the risks

necessary to achieve some of the things we most value in life. Risk to ask someone out on a date. Risk to show genuine vulnerability. Risk to try an academically challenging program such

as pre-med.

Courage and the Unity of the Virtues

To have any single strength of character in full measure, a person must have the other ones as well. Courage without good judgment is blind, risking without

knowing what is worth the risk. Courage without perseverance is short-lived, etc. Courage without a clear sense of your own abilities is

foolhardy.

CourageExcess Mean Deficiency Underestimates actual danger

Correctly estimates actual danger

Overestimates actual danger

Overestimates own ability

Correctly estimates own ability

Underestimates own ability

Undervalues means, what is being placed at risk

Properly values means that are being put at risk

Overvalues the means, what is being placed at risk

Overvalues goal, what the risk is being taken for

Properly values goal that is being sought

Undervalues goal, what the risk would be taken for

Compassion Etymology: to feel or suffer with… Both cognitive and emotional Leads to action Excess: the “bleeding heart” Deficiency: moral callousness Contrast with pity

Compassion as an Emotion Emotion is often necessary:

to recognize the suffering of others emotional attunement

part of the response to that suffering others often need to feel that you care

Cleverness and Wisdom The clever person knows the best means to

any possible end. The wise person knows which ends are worth

striving for.

Self-Love Involves feeling, knowing, and acting Characteristics of loving another person:

Feelings of tenderness, care, appreciation, respect toward that person

Knowing that person (infatuation usually does not involve knowledge)

Acting in ways that promote the flourishing of that person

Self-Love: Principal CharacteristicsCharacteristics of self-love

Having feelings of care, appreciation, and respect for others

Valuing yourself--flows from feelings of self-love

Knowing yourself--a long, often arduous, and never completed task

Acting in ways that promote your genuine flourishing

Self-Love: DeficiencyDeficiency

Too little feeling: self-loathing Too little self-valuing: self-deprecating Too little self-knowledge: unwilling or unable to

look at one’s own motivations, feelings, etc. Too little acting: not taking steps to insure one’s

own well-being

Self-Love: Excess Excesses of self-love take many forms: arrogance,

conceit, egoism, vanity, and narcissism are but a few of the ways in which we can err in this direction.

Too much caring: self-centeredness Too much self-valuing: arrogance, conceit Too much self-knowledge: narcissistic Too much acting for self: selfishness

Forgiveness This, too, is a virtue indispensable for human

flourishing In any long-term relationship (friendship, marriage, etc.),

each party will do things that must be forgiven by the other.

Long term relationships are necessary to human flourishing.

If we cannot forgive, we cannot have continuing long term relationships

Forgiveness: Excess and Deficiency Excess: the person who forgives too easily and too

quickly may undervalue self may underestimate offense

Deficiency: the person who can never forgive may overestimate his or her own importance usually lives a life of bitterness and anger

Concluding Evaluation Virtues are those strengths of character that

enable us to flourish The virtuous person has practical wisdom, the

ability to know when and how best to apply these various moral perspectives.

Divine Command

We will consider three different accounts of the relationship between religion and reason in ethics:

Religion takes priority over reason: Divine command theories Teleological suspension of the ethical

Compatibilist theories Autonomy of reason theories These theories claim that something is right because God

wills it.

Compatibilist Theories Compatibilist theories say that reason and

religion can never contradict one another Strong: they are saying the same thing Weak: they say different things, but not

contradictory things

Weak CompatibilismThomas Aquinas believed that reason and faith could never contradict one another, but faith may reveals truths beyond the react of reason.

Rationalistic TheistsImmanuel Kant believed in God, but felt that even God was subject to the dictates of reason.

A Crucial Distinction Distinguish two questions:

Content. Can reason provide us with adequate guidelines about how we should act? The answer appears to be “yes.”

Motivation. Can reason provide us with adequate motivation to do the right thing? Here the answer appears to be “no.”

Possible Relationships between Religion and Reason in Ethics

Supremacy of Religion

Compatibilist Theories

Supremacy of Reason

Strong version All morality based on divine commands Fundamentalism

Reason and religion are identical Hegel

Ethics based only on reason; atheistic or agnostic Russell

Weak version Teleological Suspension of the Ethical Kierkegaard

Reason and religion may be different but do not conflict Aquinas

Even God must follow dictates of reasonKant

God’s Relationship to the World

God’s Interaction with the World In this view, God interacts with the world

in several ways: God creates the world God is in contact interaction with the world God’s creative act (esse) continually sustains

the world in its existence God gives the world a final purpose or goal or

telos toward which it strives

Overview

We will consider three different accounts of the relationship between religion and reason in ethics:

Religion takes priority over reason: Divine command theories Teleological suspension of the ethical

Compatibilist theories Autonomy of reason theories

Divine Command Theories These theories claim that something is right

because God will it. Augustine and the voluntarist tradition Clear in Islam, where the will of Allah is the

measure of all that is right Also characteristic of much of

fundamentalism in all religions.

Criticisms of Divine Command Theories

How can we know God’s will? Does divine command theory undermine

human autonomy? Can be used to subjugate the masses.

Abraham and Isaac

In the old Testament, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac.

The Story of Abraham

Genesis, 22:1-10And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

The Story of Abraham

Genesis, 22:11-19And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he

said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

The Issue God’s command that Abraham should kill

his only son as a sacrifice to God seems to go against reason and morality

The issue: can God ask us to do things that go against reason and morality? Which takes precedence, God’s command or reason?

Immanuel Kantand the Ethics of Duty

Two Conceptions of Duty

Duty as following orders The Adolph Eichmann model Duty is external Duty is imposed by others

Duty as freely imposing obligation on one’s own self The Kantian model Duty is internal We impose duty on ourselves

The second conception of duty is much more morally advanced than the first.

Duty and Inclination Kant was mistrustful of inclinations

(Neigungen) as motivations This was part of his view of the physical world as

causally determined Saw feelings as

Unreliable Passive Phenomenal

Types of Imperatives Hypothetical Imperative:

“If you want to drive to UCLA from San Diego, take the 405 freeway.”

Structure: if…then… Categorical Imperative

“Always tell the truth” Unconditional, applicable at all times

Most of us live by rules much of the time. Some of these are what Kant called Categorical Imperatives—unconditional commands that are binding on everyone at all times.

The Categorical Imperative

“Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity.”

--Immanuel Kant

Categorical Imperatives: Respect “Always treat humanity, whether in yourself

or in other people, as an end in itself and never as a mere means.”

--Immanuel Kant

Categorical Imperative: Publicity Always act in such a way that you would not

be embarrassed to have your actions described on the front page of The New York Times.

Conclusion Kant saw that morality must be fair and

evenhanded. The Kantian path offers a certain kind of

moral safety in an uncertain world.

Teleology

Considers acts as morally right or acceptable if they produce some desired result such as pleasure, knowledge, career growth, the realization of a self interest, or utility

Assesses moral worth by looking at

the consequences for the individual

Categories of Teleology Egoism

Right or acceptable behavior defined in terms of consequences to the individual

Maximizes personal interestsEnlightened egoists take a longer term perspective and allow for the

well being of others. Utilitarianism

Concerned with consequences Considers a cost/benefit analysis Behavior based on principles of rules that promote the greatest

utility rather than on an examination of each situation (greatest good for greatest number of people)

The Relativist Perspective Defines ethical behavior subjectively from the

experiences of individuals and groups Relativists use themselves or those around them

as their basis for defining ethical standards A positive group consensus indicates that an

action is considered ethical by the group Acknowledges that we live in a society in which

people have different views There are many different bases from which to

justify a decision as right or wrong

Three Types of Justice Distributive justice

An evaluation of the outcomes or results of a business relationship (evaluating benefits derived/equity in rewards)

Procedural justice Based on the processes and activities that produce the outcomes

or results (evaluating decision making processes and level of access, openness and participation)

Interactional justice Based on an evaluation of the communication processes used in

business relationships (evaluating accuracy of information and truthfulness, respect and courtesy in the process)

Cognitive Moral Development Kohlberg’s model consist of 6

stages: Punishment and obedience Individual instrumental purpose and

exchange Mutual interpersonal expectations,

relationships, and conformity Social system and conscience

maintenance Prior rights, social contract or utility Universal ethical principles

Kohlberg’s Model Kohlberg’s 6 stages can be reduced to 3

different levels of ethical concern: Concern with immediate interests and with

rewards and punishments Concern with “right” as expected by the larger

society or some significant reference group Seeing beyond norms, laws, and the authority of

groups or individuals