2 - What Should We Do?

 Ethics:  What Should We Do, and Why?
    There are so many ways to describe what is right or wrong. We look at some of the most popular and discuss the best points of each, as well as their limitations.
 
 
I. Why Do We Not Create Moral Theories from Scratch?

We use the terms, definitions, and descriptions from major philosophers. These have been refined over time by the discussions of reflective, rational thinkers. These give us a common framework for communicating our ideas.


II. What Are the Most Used Ethical Theories?

Ethical theories most used within the study of Applied Ethics are

(1) Utilitarianism, looking to consequences of actions to determine the maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people;

(2) Duty Ethics, looking to the intentions before the actions;

(3) Virtue Ethics, looking at the habits of character and moderation to determine excellence and morality;

(4) Natural Law or Legal Rights, looking to rights from legal or political statements or from rational examination and understanding of what those rights are, whether God-given or not, which flow to all humans by reason of being born human; and

(5) Caring Ethics, judging action by the level of caring for the web of relationships, nurturing human flourishing within a personal, social context, or the empathetic involvement in the lives of others that envisions the best possible future.


III. What is Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is empirical; it looks to measurable experience in the material world.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, from the 19th Century in England, sought an ethical standard that would recognize human pleasure as the good, making its measurement and expansion paramount. Although pleasure might seem to be a subjective standard, Utilitarians judge consequences solely by objective, reasonable standards. Utilitarians do not consider the opinions of those who like pain, for example, to be rational.

In seeking to liberate the wishes of society as a whole from subjugation to the will of the ruling elite, Utilitarian philosophers defined the good as that which creates the maximum pleasure, that is, the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Thus, the pleasure of the wealthy few does not defeat the wants of the weary many; nor is the delight of the powerful a legitimate cause to inflict the meek multitudes with misery.

Limitation: Sometimes the majority feel pleasure at harming a minority.


IV. What is Duty Ethics?

 Both Duty and Virtue Ethics look to the quality of actions and the inherent dignity of all people.

Duty Ethics is based on rules. Immanuel Kant, from 18th Century Germany, described Duty Ethics as the universal command to treat each person as a moral agent and as an end, not as a means or an instrument to the pleasure of another. The intentions of the actor are the determining feature of whether an action is considered moral by Duty Ethics.

 Kant called the universal command the Categorical Imperative. It is the unbending rule of morality, applicable in all times and places and situations.

Treating others not as a means but as an end is one way of stating the rule. Also, one can phrase it as reciprocity requires that limitations for others be equally applied to oneself.

Limitation: Sometimes rules do not cover all situations. Sometimes one should lie to protect the life of a friend.


V. What is Virtue Ethics?

 Virtue Ethics is derived from the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, and seeks to educate character to assume the habit of a moral disposition and character. Moderation is the road to virtue.

Plato and Aristotle advocated living according to a human model of the virtues, the qualities of excellence. “What would the heroic do?”might have been the question of Homer from the earlier days of Greece, but these two philosophers of Athens sought a moral compass.

Thus, the questions became, “What would honesty require?”for example. Plato and Aristotle looked for virtues such as truth, beauty, will power, and justice or proportionality, as well as benevolence, civility, dependability, generosity, loyalty, moderation, patience, and prudence.

Virtue Ethics generally judges character rather than specific actions. Character can be trained or educated. At its best, good character includes as many of the qualities of excellence and becomes a habit.

Limitation: Vague and self-defining, it can be uncritical of specific actions.


VI. What is the Relation between Reason and Natural Law?

Natural Law flows from the order of the universe directly into the reason of humans. The ordered universe is subject to the patterns of Nature, just as reason is subject to the limits of logic. As the unseen judge of the unseen realm of ideas, reason is the best way to understand the Law of Nature, to determine justice, and to develop character. Looking to reason and to conscience, each of us can know Natural Law.

Ancient ideas about the rule of reason still animate discussion of Natural Law. However, Empiricists and others do not ascribe to claims for a superior role for reason.


VII. What is the Source of Human Rights?

 Many followers of Natural Law feel it was installed in the heavens by God at the time of creation and in the mind of a human at the moment of birth. Just as the scientific laws of the natural world, such as gravity, cannot be restrained or overruled by humans, so, too, the rules of logic cannot be dissolved or diluted. Equally true, the natural rights of humans endowed by the creator cannot be amended or changed by the actions of humans or their governments. These rights existed since the beginning of time and still reside within every human for no more cause than being born human.

Later thinkers were less concerned with the source of these rights and more interested in identifying them. Such documents as the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are seen as expressions of these rights. The final version of human rights exists in ultimate, unfettered reason, and can only be known in increasing levels of understanding by human minds, which by nature lack perfection.

A more recent effort to catalogue human rights exists in the U.N. Charter of Human Rights.


VIII. What Are Human Rights?

 Discussions of rights today are the most likely to incorporate recent court cases and legal reasoning. From the time of the writings of John Locke through the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights four hundred years later, our understanding of the extent of rights has grown. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," written in the 1776 Declaration of Independence may sound vague.

However, a "paid two-week vacation every year for every employee working at least 35 hours per week for 50 weeks in that year" might be a specific, modern day example of what is stated as a general, human right: “periodic holidays with pay,” which is contained in the 1948 U.N. Declaration.

 Natural Rights theorists maintain that financial costs alone are not sufficient to restrict our rights. Further, court cases can summarize the opinions of the legal community for the time in question but can also be the result of political compromise, not eternal standards. Therefore, court decisions alone do not end debate, but only summarize arguments of the day. This is part of the theory of a "Living Constitution."

Limitation: Political arguments can ensue from efforts to define specific Human Rights.

IX. What Are the Ethics of Care?

Finally, the Ethics of Care uses empathy, emotion, and sentiment as a guide to choosing courses of action.

Among those philosophers advocating "sympathy" as a moral compass are David Hume, the skeptic, Scottish philosopher of 18th Century, and his contemporary, Adam Smith, the economist.

In the 20th Century, advocates of "empathy" include U.S. feminists Carol Gilligan, Nell Nodding, and Annette Baier, as well as German, Catholic martyr and phenomenologist Saint Edith Stein.

Further, since caring is viewed as a virtue, many people see Caring Ethics as a specific form of the ancient Virtue Ethics, even though the Greeks used reason alone, and rarely incorporated emotion or empathy into moral decision-making.

The ironies are (1) that “care” was not identified as a virtue until the twentieth-century Feminists discovered it; and
(2) the Virtue theorists from ancient days through the medieval era up until quite recently often agreed with Aristotle that women were incomplete men or lacking in reasoning capacity.

Feminist Ethics, more recently called Caring Ethics, seeks a unique solution to each problem, growing from context and human relatedness to an understanding of the proper objects of care and how to create a web of relationships that best cherishes the individual members of that web while giving each the greatest freedom to empower human growth to achieve self‑actualization. The most subjective of the standards, Feminist or Caring Ethics seeks to increase the reflective care contained within human relationships.

The Ethics of Care require not mere passive avoidance of impeding the moral freedom of others, or limiting our freedom for the sake of the freedom of others. Unlike Human Rights Theory and others, Care requires direct action, in particular affirmative participation in the practice of caring. Empathy and envisioning a higher individual capacity for achievement and self-actualization are tools of the Ethics of Care.

With the tools of empathy and hope, the Ethics of Care requires the discernment of specific, contextual decisions of the extent, nature, and proper objects of care. Some people are more the proper recipients of our care than others, with different expectations and expressions of care for each person in each circumstance.

Limitation: Vague and self-defining, it favors friends and family over strangers.

(Kant gave a universal rule that disregarded relationship; Caring ethics considers relationship almost entirely. Friends or strangers: should both be treated the same? What about one's own infant? Surely an affirmative duty to care for someone is different from a duty to refrain from hurting anyone. Where do we draw the line?)


X. What Is the Benefit of Using these Ethical Systems?

Finally, we see that articulating a consistent standard for moral decision-making a difficult enterprise. Understanding and using the concepts of these few basic systems allow us to use a yardstick our contemporaries can also use and comprehend.


XI. How Do They All Fit Together?

(1) Utilitarianism judges consequences of actions to determine the maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people;

(2) Duty Ethics judges the intentions before the actions;

(3) Virtue Ethics judges the habits of character and moderation to determine excellence and morality;

(4) Natural Law or Legal Rights judges rights from legal or political statements, or from rational examination and understanding of what those rights are, whether God-given or not, which flow to all humans by reason of being born human; and

(5) Caring Ethics, judges action by the level of caring within the web of relationships, nurturing human flourishing within a personal, social context, or the empathetic involvement in the lives of others that envisions the best possible future.


XII. Summary.

Consequences, intentions, character, rights, reason, and caring are all part of judging morality.

Weighing the results of each, we can be sure our actions are moral. 







 [I have posted some information over at the Philosophy FAQs blog, http://philosophyfaqs.blogspot.com/2010/09/4-what-are-theories-of-ethics.html 
It's a summary of a much earlier draft.]