Introduction To Ethics

Front 1

Philip Hallie: From cruelty to goodness
Good and Evil

Back 1

A NEGATIVE ETHIC consists of prohibitions, for example, the Ten Commandments. To follow a negative ethic is to be "decent," to have clean hands. (Note that the 38 people mentioned in Gansberg's article obeyed most of the Ten Commandments. More on this later.)

A POSITIVE ETHIC requires us to be more than decent; it is to be active, even risky in what we do to help others. It is to be, for example, "one's brother's keeper." Or as stated in Isaiah, "defend the fatherless," and "defend the widow." Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan in the Bible.
Positive—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and Negative—“Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.”
It is possible for a person to act cruelly without knowing that the act is cruel.
Example of a victimizer involved in institutionalized cruelty is Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.

Himmler managed to transform cruelty into a kind of moral nobility. Of course, Hallie points out, the fact that a Nazi soldier can be polite and even "kind" towards a Jew doesn't mean that he is not cruel.
Hallie writes that when the "power differential is eliminated, [institutionalized] cruelty will tend to be eliminated" (8). Kindness alone will not do the trick. One must at least be freed from the cruel relationship.
Goodness must directly oppose cruelty;ss must directly oppose cruelty; a smile or bit of bread from an SS guard or slave-master cannot dissipate cruelty. Hallie writes about the people of the French village of Le Chambon who saved the lives of about 6,000 people, mostly Jewish children whose parents had been killed in gas chambers and killing camps, by not only housing and feeding the refugees, but also taking many to neutral Switzerland.

The people of Le Chambon obeyed both the negative and positive injunctions of ethics. For Hallie, the opposite of cruelty is not simply freedom from the cruel relationship. It is not just liberation (for victims will still remember the cruelty they endured) but also hospitality (in Hallie's words, unsentimental, efficacious love).

Front 2

Jonathan Bennet: The conscience of huckleberry Finn
Good and Evil

Back 2

three consciences: Huckleberry Finn, Heinrich Himmler, and Jonathan Edwards. He uses them to illustrate the relationship between SYMPATHY and MORALITY.
ad morality as "a morality whose principles I deeply disapprove of" (17). Then he defines sympathy as a "term to cover every sort of fellow-feeling, as when one feels pity over someone's loneliness, or horrified compassion over his pain.
These feelings must not be confused with moral judgments".
Bennett writes: "Huck hasn't the strength of will to do what he sincerely thinks he ought to do" (20).
etting Jim go conflicts with Huck's morality (and so his conscience). But sympathy wins out.
Himmler: bad morality wins out over his sympathy. For Himmler, the ends justify the means. The rules by which he lives reveal a sick, bad morality. However, Bennett believes that Himmler genuinely had sympathy for his victims, though his bad morality prevails. Himmler effectively tortured and killed millions.
Bennett: llows himself no sympathy at all. or Edwards, even the saints in heaven will rejoice at the torment of the damned.Even though Edwards never killed anyone, Bennett thinks that Edwards was morally a more reprehensible person than Himmler, since he had no sympathy for his "victims."

Front 3

Philip Hallie: The Evil that men thin-and do
Good and Evil

Back 3

Hallie argues that "victims are as essential in morality as the presence or absence of sympathy inside the head of the moral agent"
Hallie discusses Lewis Carroll's Walrus and Carpenter poem. After persuading a number of young oysters to join them, the Walrus and the Carpenter begin eating the oysters. The Carpenter has no feelings for the oysters.But the Walrus deeply sympathizes with his meal: Ultimately, though, the Walrus eats more of the oysters than does the Carpenter.
Hallie believes that Himmler did not have genuine sympathy for his victims. Any expressions of sympathy were just that—expressions.
anyone who could order the murder of millions of people could not have sympathy. Anyone with sympathy wouldn't have done such a thing. Anyone who could do such a thing is a truly EVIL person, according to Hallie. Now, Hallie believes that evil people cannot be said to be merely sick or ill. It is not as if they are just missing a part of their soul. Rather they possess something we (non-evil people) do not.

Front 4

M. Gansberg "Thirty- Eight who saw murder didn't call police"
Good and Evil

Back 4

Q: Should we legally require bystanders to aid those in critical need when they can safely do so?
Morally speaking, we should all take the Hippocratic Oath to help others.

Front 5

Herodotus "Morality as Custom"
Relativism

Back 5

If anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from among all the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their relative merits, choose that of his own country.
Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best; and that being so, it is unlikely that anyone but a madman would mock at such things.
Herodotus notes the different customs of the Greeks and the Callatians regarding the dead.
Do different customs entail different moral values?

Front 6

Ruth Benedict "A defense of Moral Relativism"
Relativism

Back 6

abnormals in one culture might be perfectly normal in another: homosexuality and mysticism.
Human culture is learned (in contrast to genetically endowed) behavior acquired by individuals as member of a social group.
culture is often seen as consisting of four basic elements: values (codes, norms, standards), sanctions (methods of enforcement), practices (actual modes of behavior), and artifacts (materials).
She claims that "morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits"
Bennett too thinks of morality in terms of approval.
All she does is point to the fact of moral disagreement and to the fact that "happily, the majority of mankind quite readily take any shape that is presented to them"

Front 7

James Rachels: Elements of Moral Philosophy
Relativism

Back 7

different cultures have different moral codes: He discusses the Greeks and the Callatians regarding the treatment of the dead, the Eskimo practice of "loose" marriage and that of infanticide.
"there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times," then we should not "try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures" (19). Those who recommend this view are called cultural relativists.
Cultural Differences Argument: 1.Different cultures have different moral codes.
Therefore
2.There is no objective "truth," or right and wrong, in morality.
**if its premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow. For it certainly could be the case that though cultures have different moral codes, some have got it wrong.
ex: disagreement about the shape of the earth, or morality of slavery.
universality of moral value does not entail objectivity of moral value

Front 8

Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban "Cultural Relativism and universal rights"
Relativism

Back 8

a version Rachel's Cultural Differences Argument but as applied specifically to Anthropology:
1.Each culture has its own values and practices.
Therefore
2.Anthropologists should not make value judgments about cultural differences.
Fleuhr-Lobban argues that anthropologists have been inconsistent. They spoke out against Nazi genocide and apartheid in South Africa. They testified in U.S. courts against government rules that infringe on the religious traditions of sacred Native American lands.

But, on the whole, anthropologists have not spoken out against the practice in many cultures of female circumcision (female genital mutilation). In general there is little criticism of violence against women, for example, regarding "honor" killings and domestic violence. They tend to be unwilling to speak out against infanticide or violence between religious sects.
some cultures are even beginning to change.
"What authority do we Westerners have to impose our own concept of universal rights on the rest of humanity?"
We should remain sensitive to cultural differences, but when defending human rights and defending cultural relativism come into conflict, go with the former. When forced to choose, pick human rights.

Front 9

Martin Luther King Jr.: I have a dream
Relativism

Back 9

King is not a cultural relativist. Often he appeals to universal and objective moral principles of freedom and equality. Civil rights. Justice. Righteousness.
Was he trying to change American values? Or was he trying to make us follow true American values?
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the TRUE meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal'"

Front 10

The UN Charter: The universal declaration of human rights

Back 10

A right is what one is due—what a person ought to have.
Human rights are fundamental entitlements that all persons should enjoy as protection against state conduct prohibited by international law or custom.
torture; arbitrary detention or exile; slavery or involuntary servitude; discrimination on racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual grounds; and violation of the rights to due process, free expression, free association, free movement, and peaceable assembly.
e Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in getting this document through. The General Assembly proclaimed this declaration "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction"
"negative" rights of freedom from governmental interference.; they mostly assert "positive" rights that require the government to ensure such basic benefits as work, housing, and medical care.

Front 11

Rachels: EMP ch6
Utilitarianism

Back 11

Utilitarianism: It became important that everyone be happy. Everyone should be allowed to pursue happiness.
PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
Whenever we have a choice between alternative actions or social policies, we must choose the one that has the best overall consequences for everyone affected or involved.
morality requires that in deciding what to do, we should ask what course of action would promote the greatest amount of happiness for all those who will be affected.
the moral issues of euthanasia and animal rights, as discussed by Rachels.
Euthanasia: any utilitarians think that in the case of euthanasia the compassion we show to animals should also be extended to humans
Animals Case: tilitarians think that on the whole we do not show enough compassion to animals

Front 12

John Stuart Mill "Utilitarianism"
Utilitarianism

Back 12

GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE
Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
✦Happiness =df pleasure and absence of pain
✦Unhappiness =df pain and absence of pleasure
hedonism connotes self-centered pleasure-seeking, and Utilitarianism is far from self-centered

Front 13

Rachels, EMP ch7
Utilitarianism

Back 13

The Trolley Problem. Suppose you are driving a trolley in San Francisco, when the brakes fail. You are heading down the track and see five workers who will be killed by the trolley. Fortunately, there is a spur to the side onto which you can turn the runaway trolley. But if you do so, you will kill one worker who is on that spur.
a strong moral distinction between doing and allowing (and so believe that only doing something makes you responsible), then you should do nothing. utilitarian, doing the right thing means not only maximizing the amount of good, but also minimizing the amount of evil. So, in the trolley case, you should actively cause one death in order to save the other five lives.

Front 14

Ursula Le Guin "The ones who walk away from omelas"
Utilitarianism

Back 14

sci-fi piece: Le Guin here describes a utilitarian utopia:
They are not simple people
But happy
No king
Do not use swords
Do not keep slaves
Not barbarians
Religion yes, clergy no
No guilt
No soldiers
In a basement room a child is sitting
It pleads to be let out
But all the people of Omelas know the child is there
They also know that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skills of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies…depend wholly on this child's adominable misery
(The misery of a single child is the cost for the perfection of the city_

Front 15

Rachels EMP ch8
Kantianism

Back 15

President Harry Truman decided to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 based on utilitarian considerations. He reasoned: If America had not so acted, more than a million lives would have been lost.
1. a utilitarian standpoint, it's debatable whether America (and the Allies in WWII) needed to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese mainland to turn the tide of the war.
2. aren't there some lines that can't be crossed no matter what? "For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder."
ere are actions that are simply unjustifiable according to many who reject Utilitarianism. They are never right, no matter what great goods might result from their being performed.

Front 16

Immanuel Kant: Good Will, Duty and the Categorial Imperative
Kantianism

Back 16

Immanuel Kant agrees that moral rules are absolute. or moral rules are what he calls categorical imperatives. He makes a distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are conditional, whereas categorical imperatives are absolute.
hypothetical imperatives because you can escape the command/demand by just losing or renouncing the desire.
You can't just escape a moral command by renouncing the relevant desire. Morally speaking, you can't just say: "Since I no longer care if people are happy or not, I can start robbing them blind!"
GOOD WILL (that is, the right intentions--motives, plans of action--that we follow through on).
The idea that lies behind the Categorical Imperative seems quite intuitive and powerful: If you really think some act is moral, you should have no problem with everyone doing it. If it's a moral thing to do, shouldn't you rationally will everyone to do it?
Kants examples: suicide, false promises, Laziness

Front 17

Rachels EMP ch9
Kantianism

Back 17

e fact that every person has inherent worth and dignity does not mean that everyone is good. Nor does it even mean that human nature is basically good.Rather, it means that people should be treated with RESPECT. This means that people should be treated equally.
Kant gives a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative. It goes like this:Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.
We must never manipulate or use people to achieve our ends or purposes, no matter how good these purposes may be.
This way of thinking is radically non-utilitarian.
Utilitarians, by and large, believe that punishment can be justified if it serves to increase the overall happiness or good in society. So if punishment is used as a deterrent or as contributing to the rehabilitation of those punished, then punishment can be justified. However, punishment as retribution only increasesthe amount of suffering or evil.
"Proportionate" punishment is fair and respectful. It is respectful to treat someone as a being who is responsible for his or her own conduct.

Front 18

Rachles EMP ch12
Virtue Ethics

Back 18

Utilitarianism and Duty-Based Ethics (such as Kant's theory) try to develop general and universal criteria or rules that allow us to classify actions as either morally good or bad. They are action and rule-based ethical theories.
ex of Virtue ethics and why stealing is wrong: Stealing is wrong because it corrupts our character.
In VIRTUE ETHICS judgments about character are more fundamental than judgments about rules, actions, duties, and obligations.
VIRTUES =df character traits that allow people to act well in a habitual way.

Front 19

Aristotle Happiness and the Virtues
Virtue Ethics

Back 19

Aristotle believed that humans are by nature rational and social (political) animals.So to function well we must live rationally and successfully in society. Virtues are the very qualities that are needed for successful human living.
Vices, on the other hand, are qualities that make successful human living impossible.
Virtues:
Courage
Honesty
Compassion
Generosity
Modesty
to live well in society requires adopting a philosophy of moderation.
Aristotle thinks that all extremes are extremes either of deficiency or of excess. Note that cowardice can be understood as having too little courage.

Front 20

Relativism

Back 20

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Front 21

Utilitarianism

Back 21

is the practice of evaluating a decision against the criterion of its consequences for the majority of people.

Front 22

Kantianism

Back 22

Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher born in Königsberg, Germany (now Kaliningrad, Russia). The term Kantianism or Kantian is still often used to describe contemporary positions in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and ethics.

Front 23

Virtue Ethics

Back 23

Virtue theory is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking