WHAT ARE ETHICS?Principles of right & wrong which regulate behavior, resolve conflicts of interest and promote social harmonyIf decision only affects yourself, based on PRUDENCE (self-interest) rather than ETHICS: avoid negative consequencesETHICAL decisions involve possibility of helping or harming other peopleETHICAL REASONING enables individuals to overcome self-serving bias

How would you define “ETHICS”?

WHAT IS EGOISM?PRUDENCE: acting in own self-interest (not necessarily selfish/EGOISTIC)EGOISM: acting in self-interest withoutcaring about impact on other peoplePSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: claim that everyone always acts in self-interest (self-sacrificial behavior is impossible)MORAL EGOISM: possible for people to act ALTRUISTICALLY (self-sacrifice) but everyone should behave EGOISTICALLY

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM is a psychological theory about how the human mind

works, suggesting that everyone always and necessarily acts in their own

self-interest even if their actions appear to be ALTRUISTIC (self-sacrificial)

Were the first responders (paramedics

and fire fighters) on 9/11 acting

EGOISTICALLY when they rushed into

buildings which were in danger of

collapsing? It seems extremely unlikely!

PSYCH. EGOISM assumes a very cynical view of human nature; although it

can’t be disproven, numerous counter-examples undermine its plausibility

MORAL EGOISM is an ethical theory which acknowledges that ALTRUISM is

possible but argues that selfishness is a moral VIRTUE (ideal), not a VICE

AYN RAND was a novelist who

promoted capitalism and

“rational selfishness”

ETHICS AND THE LAWETHICS provide the basis for most laws, but crucial distinction between themLaws generally prohibit bad behavior but don’t compel good behavior: ETHICS often require going beyond law, e.g. helping people who are in needIf laws are UNJUST, ETHICS may allow or demand violation of them in protestDanger: may break laws for EGOISTIC

reasons and rationalize as “ETHICAL”

The law rarely requires us to actively help people in need; instead, they

establish minimal moral standards that prevent us from harming others

The Civil Rights Movement is a paradigm case

of resistance to unjust laws: it was driven by

moral opposition to racial segregation and the

violation of African Americans’ civil rights

Some believe that laws restricting

pot use are likewise unjustified …

but are they simply rationalizing

their desire to smoke weed?

MOTIVATION FOR MORALITY

If we ‘do the right thing’ for reasons of PRUDENCE (e.g., to avoid punishment), we’re not necessarily behaving morallySame act can be PRUDENT or ETHICAL

depending on motivation: for example, obeying speed limit to (a) avoid ticket or (b) reduce chance of harm to othersMost choices derive from combinationof PRUDENCE and ETHICS: difficult (and unnecessary) to completely disentangle

Almost everyone agrees that stealing a CD from a store is morally

wrong, and very few of us shoplift valuable items on a regular basis

On the other hand, a majority of Americans admit that they’ve illegally

downloaded music (and other copyrighted media) from the Internet

Ethically speaking, there’s no real difference: in both cases you’re

taking something (music) that doesn’t belong to you without paying

In practical terms, however, shoplifters are far more likely to get caught

and suffer negative consequences; downloaders offer various

rationalizations to ‘justify’ their actions, but they’re not convincing

According to psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, children behave morally for

purely PRUDENTIAL reasons (e.g., to avoid punishment) or to follow rules

Most (but not all!) adults develop a higher moral sense which involves internal-

ization of ethical principles and the capacity to move beyond inflexible rules

CONSCIENCE & EMOTIONSCONSCIENCE is an internalized sense of right and wrong which causes us to feel guilty or good about our behaviorIt generally provides a good guide to moral action but must sometimes be corrected by critical ETHICAL reasoningLikewise our emotions: although feelings are central to ETHICS (e.g., anger at injustice, sympathy for those in need), they can often lead us astray

Sometimes, however, an individual’s “moral compass” is not properly aligned

For example, children raised by neo-Nazis or members of the “Westboro

Baptist Church” are likely to end up with very distorted value systems

PSYCHOPATHS lack a CONSCIENCE altogether: although they know the differ-

ence between right & wrong, they feel no guilt as a result of harming others

An estimated 1% of the U.S. population (3 million people) are PSYCHOPATHS:

fortunately, most don’t become serial killers like Dexter—a fictional character

who follows a moral code instilled in him by his adoptive father

In fact, some

PSYCHOPATHS are very

successful: the lack of a

CONSCIENCE can be an

asset in certain

professions (politics,

business, sales, etc.)

Ideally, our CONSCIENCE will be properly aligned so we feel guilty (or

good) when and to the extent that we ought to feel guilty (or good)

Unfortunately, doing what we know is wrong often feels good (at least in

the short term), and doing right can be difficult and unpleasant

ETHICAL reasoning can help us realign our CONSCIENCE … however,

knowing what we ought to do and having the appropriate feelings are

very different: the latter can require effort and practice to cultivate

VIRTUE ETHICSTheory of ETHICS which focuses on developing a good moral CHARACTER

Strive to become more VIRTUOUS

(predisposed to do what’s right) and less VICIOUS (possessing VICES, i.e., our “default” reaction is morally wrong)Provides profound psychological insight into how we actually behave: usually act on basis of CHARACTER

instead of consulting abstract theory

Although it’s been

eclipsed in recent

centuries by other

ETHICAL theories,

Virtue Ethics has a

rich history

According to Aristotle, VIRTUES comprise a “Golden Mean” (balance) between

equal and opposite VICES (excessive and insufficient degrees of a trait)Although there’s a great deal of commonality among different cultures,

societies have different ideas about what qualifies as a moral “VIRTUE”

MORAL RELATIVISM VS. REALISM

According to RELATIVISTS, every society decides for itself what’s right and wrong—there’s no external standard by which cultures can be judgedREALISTS disagree, insisting that some ETHICAL principles are objectively true (apply to everyone in all times/places)MORAL REALISM often derives from religious beliefs: God has revealed rules which all people must follow

According to RELATIVISTS, morality is analogous to what language a society

speaks or which side of the road its citizens drives on: there’s no one “correct”

answer, just cultural variations which all deserve an equal amount of respect

Despite their respect for cultural diversity, REALISTS insist that morality is

different because it involves issues which can help or harm individuals

Is this an absolute moral truth, or is slavery sometimes justified? What

about rape, or the torture of children, or genocide, or other atrocities?

If RELATIVISM is true, then slavery etc. are morally correct as long as any

given society regards them as right … and slavery was ethically justified

until the moment the majority of Americans became convinced it’s wrong

Likewise, modern-day societies which deprive women of their rights and

punish the victims (not the perpetrators) of rape are morally correct; we

have no position from which to criticize them or argue for different laws

If REALISM is true, in contrast, we can confidently condemn immoral

practices no matter when or where they occur … but what’s the source of

these unchanging principles, and who decides exactly what they are?

ETHICS AND RELIGIONMany moral REALISTS derive their views from religion, believing that God has revealed ETHICAL truths to humanityThere are several problems with this claim: (1) There are many different religions—which one (if any) is true?(2) Within any given religion (such as Christianity), there are divergent inter-pretations and a wide range of ETHICAL

views (from liberal to conservative)

Has God revealed

moral truths to

humanity? If so, in

which God should

we trust?

This one?

If we focus on a specific religion, which version should be follow?

Or this one?

The U.S. is a religiously pluralistic country with many different faith traditions, so

ETHICAL arguments offered in public debates need to have a SECULAR (non-

religious) basis in addition to any religious rationale which may underlie them

Fortunately, there’s one foundational

moral principle which all major religious

traditions share in common …

INTER-SUBJECTIVE ETHICSVirtue of RECIPROCITY (treat others how you’d like to be treated) provides basis for position less rigid than REALISM but more consistent than RELATIVISM

Requires recognition that all humans (regardless of race, sex, culture, etc.) share same basic nature and needsExpressed in idea of universal HUMAN

RIGHTS: everyone is entitled to basic RESPECT no matter what society says

Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s

summary of fundamental needs

which all human beings share

(Different cultures

understand and

satisfy these needs

in different ways)

Along with RECIPROCITY (Golden Rule), EMPATHY is central to moral thinking

Once we recognize that other people are basically like us in terms of their needs

and desires, it becomes ethically inconsistent to violate their basic rights

(SOCIOPATHS lack EMPATHY)

If you don’t want to be enslaved (or stolen from, raped, murdered, etc.), it’s

morally wrong to inflict that kind of harm on other people who are like you

Moral atrocities are often justified by “dehumanizing” their victims …

Native Americans and African slaves were considered “subhuman”Nazis regarded Jews as “vermin” who needed to be “exterminated”

The perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (over 800,000 people were

murdered in a period of several months) called their victims “cockroaches”

From the confession of a killer who belonged to the majority Hutu ethnic

group: “We no longer saw a human being when we turned up a Tutsi in the

swamps. I mean a person like us, sharing similar thoughts and feelings …”

SO, WHAT ARE ETHICS?Principles of right and wrong which regulate behavior within society, founded on principle of RECIPROCITY

and recognition of shared humanityEven if “moral facts” aren’t accessible or don’t exist, sufficient basis for common core of shared values/virtuesEthical thinking enables us to overcome EGOISM and becomes internalized in CONSCIENCE of VIRTUOUS individuals

In general, VIRTUOUS individuals lead more satisfying and fulfilling lives, and

VIRTUOUS societies are more conducive to human FLOURISHING (happiness)

In contrast, VICIOUS (VICE-filled) people are more likely to feel alienated and

unhappy, and VICIOUS societies contribute to dysfunction and dissatisfaction

No person can be perfectly VIRTUOUS (always and automatically doing the right

thing) because ETHICAL behavior is always mixed with PRUDENCE

However, individuals (and societies) should continually strive to become more

VIRTUOUS, recognizing that “VIRTUE” can take many different forms

For example, non-Western societies don’t need to have the exact same under-

standing of EQUALITY that we possess to respect the basic rights of women

Likewise, the definition of a “good life” (in moral terms) can vary greatly among

individuals in a society—but will always contain certain elements

Some VALUES are universally embraced, although they might be interpreted and

applied different both within a culture and between different cultures

Examples: COMPASSION (aka SYMPATHY), RECIPROCITY, JUSTICE (giving people

what they’re due), LIBERTY (freedom and autonomy), TOLERANCE

(Any others you would add to the list?)

ASSIGNMENTSummarize the differences between MORAL REALISM, MORAL RELATIVISM and ETHICAL INTER-SUBJECTIVISM.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. In your view, are there any moral absolutes? If so, how are they justified?2. How often do you break the rules? Are you usually motivated by self-interest, and if so does that reflect on your VIRTUE?