Identify the central moral controversy at stake in the case study.
In this final written assignment, Case Study: Ethical Theory Application and Evaluation, you will create your own case study based on
an ethical issue or social problem in your local community (neighborhood, town city, school district, religious community, local politics, water safety, housing issues, etc.),
an ethical issue in your current job, or
an ethical issue in your field of study.
This final written assignment should be an essay and include the following sections with headings in bold font:
Part 1: Introduction, Case Study, and Ethical Question
In this section, you will create the case study. To complete this section,
Present a brief introduction to the case study.
Discuss background information.
Identify the central moral controversy at stake in the case study.
Articulate an ethical question based on the central moral controversy.
This section should be around 300 words.
Part 2: Philosophy Reading Reflection
In Sections 4 and 5 you will use two ethical theories to analyze your case study. In this section, you will choose a philosophical text associated with one of the ethical theories you will be using in Section 4 or 5. The philosophical text can be the same one you used in the Week 3 written assignment, or you can choose a new text. Copy and paste the text into this section. After applying the metacognitive strategies on reading philosophical texts from Week 1,
Examine the meaning of the text.
Discuss how your understanding of the text evolved after multiple reads.
Explain how the text might apply to the case study.
This section should be around 150 words (excluding the philosophical text).
Part 3: Explanation of First Ethical Theory
In this section, choose either utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics. This will be the primary or first ethical theory you will use to consider the case study. You can choose the same ethical theory you used in the Week 3 written assignment or choose a different ethical theory. To complete this section,
Discuss the historical background of the ethical theory and the philosopher primarily associated with it.
Articulate the core principle(s) of the ethical theory.
Demonstrate how the principle(s) applies to an ethical question different than the ethical question in your case study.
This section should be around 250 words.
Part 4: Application of First Ethical Theory
In this section, you will apply the principle(s) of the ethical theory to the case study. To complete this section,
Clarify the central moral controversy at stake in the ethical question.
Analyze the core principle of the ethical theory.
Explain how someone using the core principles of the ethical theory would answer the ethical question addressed by your case.
This section should be around 350 words.
Part 5: Explanation and Application of Second Ethical Theory
In this section, you will choose a second ethical theory and apply it to the case study. The explanation and application here will be briefer than the first ethical theory. To complete this section,
Discuss the core principle of the ethical theory.
Explain how someone using the core principles of the ethical theory would analyze the case study and answer the ethical question.
This section should be around 150 or 200 words.
Part 6: Evaluation of First Ethical Theory Application
In this section, you will evaluate the results of applying the ethical theory to the case study. The idea here is to assess the success (or failure) of the theory in providing an adequate or actionable solution to the central moral controversy in the case study. To complete this section,
Discuss the answer to the ethical question provided by applying the first ethical theory.
Compare the answer to the ethical question provided by applying the first ethical theory to the second ethical theory’s application.
Explain which ethical theory you think offers the strongest resolution to the ethical issue.
Evaluate the strength of the application by considering one or more of the following questions:
Does applying the theory present an adequate response to the issue, or are there significant aspects of the issue the theory does not address?
Does the application differ from how the issue is currently being addressed?
Does the application present a better approach to how the issue is currently being addressed?
Does applying the theory to the issue raise other problems or concerns?
This section should be between 300 and 350 words.
Part 7: Conclusion
In this section, you will describe what you have accomplished in the paper. To complete this section,
Summarize the analyses and conclusions of applying the first and second ethical theories to your case study.
Evaluate the results of applying the theory
Did it offer an adequate solution to the issue?
What is the greatest strength or weakness of the theory when applied to the issue?
Provide any additional recommendations you think might help address the central moral controversy in the case study.
This section should be around 150 words.
#3 FREE SPEECH AND RACISM case study
Free speech is a hallmark of American society and the subject of the very First
Amendment in the Constitution. Throughout our history, various cases of free
speech have been challenged and some limits have been placed on this right. In recent years, the right to free speech has been called into question in cases involving the use of free speech to protect racist or hate speech. When choosing this case, take some time to formulate your ethical question and make sure that it has a specific and narrow focus. It’s a good idea for the ethical question to ask whether (fill in the blank with content from the specific case) is moral. For additional resources, type “Free Speech and Racism” into the search engine in the library.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2023-19650-001.htmlLinks to an external site.
http://www.freespeechhistory.com/2020/08/21/episode-41-free-speech-andracial-justice-friends-or-foes/Links to an external site.
Requirements: 7 pages
1IntroductionZerbor/iStock/ThinkstockLearning ObjectivesAfter reading this chapter, you should be able to:• Discuss why it is important to study ethics.• Give examples of ethical questions.• Explain what it means to describe ethical reasoning as dialectical.• Describe what practical reasoning is and how ethical reasoning is a form of practical reasoning.• Identify the basic distinctions between utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
Section 1.1 Socrates’s QuestionIt is not a trivial question, Socrates said: what we are talking about is how one should live.—Bernard Williams1.1 Socrates’s QuestionIn 399 BC, more than 2,400 years ago, a Greek philosopher named Socrates is reported to have said that ethics concerns no less than how one should live. The philosopher Bernard Wil-liams (1985) called this “Socrates’s question.” This might seem to be an odd way of defining ethics for a number of reasons.First, the question is quite broad: “How one should live” seems to concern the whole of one’s life. Yet many of us think of ethics as limited to a set of standards or rules, such as those we are taught by our parents or in Sunday school. Second, “how one should live” seems to mean “how anyone and everyone ought to live.” How can anyone make claims about how others should live? Moreover, if Socrates and his followers were seeking answers to these types of questions thousands of years ago, why have we not settled on any answers? Does this mean that there are no answers or that the answers to such ques-tions are best left up to individuals to determine on their own?These are important concerns that we will examine in the pages ahead. But before getting into those details, it is worth considering whether the task of seeking general answers about how one should live is a useful endeavor. After all, we raise our children according to the presumption that certain ways of life are better than others. When politicians create laws, they do so because they think certain ways to live are better than others. Likewise, when we vote on such laws, we do so because we agree that cer-tain ideas about how people should live are worth becoming part of the established code of our com-munity or nation.When we express outrage over certain situations—for example, when a politician takes bribes, a cor-poration hides illegal activities in order to pad the pockets of its leaders, a terrorist group beheads an innocent aid worker, or a friend lies to us—we pre-sume that something has gone wrong in the choices these people have made regarding how to live their lives. Similarly, when we praise the bystander who risks his or her life to protect others from a gun-man; admire the work of the nun who devotes her sedmak/iStock/ThinkstockThe Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates raised the question of how one should live, which became the central ethical question for all that followed.
Section 1.1 Socrates’s Questionlife to caring for the poor, outcast, and diseased; honor the soldier who sacrifices his or her life to save a wounded comrade; or express gratitude to the family member who has cared for us unselfishly, we reflect the deep conviction that such actions embody something good and right.In doing so, we affirm through our attitudes and responses that there are some things good and right and other things that are bad and wrong. This is true whether we are referring to particular actions or choices; general policies, rules, or laws; or values and character. We may acknowledge that there is widespread disagreement over many views concerning how one should live. However, it would be extremely difficult to live our lives without supposing that these questions are worth thinking about and that at least some answers are better than others.Here is another way to think about it: Through each conscious, deliberate choice we make, we are living out an answer to Socrates’s question. With every decision, each time we say “This would be better than that,” we take a stand on what matters to us, whether we realize we are doing so or not. However, since our choices to do (or not do) certain things also impact other people and the world around us, we cannot avoid tak-ing a stand on what matters in a more gen-eral sense. When we act selfishly, we imply that what matters most are our own needs or interests. When we act generously, we show that the needs and interests of others matter. Most of the time, we are not thinking about our choices from this perspective; we are just making the decisions that seem best to us. But as we will see in more detail later, we have the remarkable capacity to ques-tion our own or others’ assumptions about how one should live.This questioning, and the pursuit of an-swers, is what “ethics” (or “moral philoso-phy”) is all about.Why Study Ethics?To sum up, ethics considers how one should live. The question of how one should live plays into our everyday choices; the general beliefs we hold about how people ought to live, think, and act; and the specific judgments that we make on the basis of such beliefs. Examining this broad question and more specific questions at a reflective and systematic level is what we mean by philosophical ethics or moral philosophy.Going Deeper: Ethics Versus MoralityCan one define ethics or morality, and is there a difference between these terms? In this book, we will not provide a strict definition of either of these ideas, and we will use the terms interchangeably. Some philosophers have, however, drawn distinctions between them, and it can be illuminating to consider them. See Going Deeper: Ethics Versus Morality at the end of the chapter for more.An Inescapable QuestionWhether we realize it or not, our lives are driven by various ideas, values, and assumptions about what matters in life. We cannot escape Socrates’s question. This text gives us a chance to consider it more deeply than we ever have before.
Section 1.1 Socrates’s QuestionPursuing answers to such questions can be confusing, tedious, and even distressing (see Going Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical Life). However, persisting in the task—and taking its challenges seriously—is a way to live out those distinctively human possibilities of thinking, questioning, and inquiring. As such, it can help us live with more integrity, consistency, and candor, and it can be surprisingly enriching.We are continually confronted with ethical questions, whether we are, like Socrates, itinerant eccentrics wandering in togas around the marketplace of Athens, or stu-dents, parents, spouses, soldiers, mechan-ics, caregivers, billionaires, minimum-wage workers, food eaters, or technology users. Everything we do—from how we spend our money and relate to our friends to how we raise and teach children and the profes-sion we choose—is ethically significant. We are confronted with issues, dilemmas, and debates that range from the very personal to the global, during which we encounter a seemingly endless number of opinions and claims.Studying ethics can give us the resources to evaluate these opinions and claims. It can help us recognize the kind of argument offered when someone makes an ethical claim. It can also help us discern the values that are being appealed to or the assump-tions made about the nature and signifi-cance of human life. Perhaps most of all, we can learn how to reason about all of these matters and intelligently evaluate the rela-tive merits of different views.Going Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical LifeAccording to Socrates and many others inspired by his example, philosophical ethics—and philosophy in general—is more than just an academic or intellectual exercise. Rather, in its most fundamental sense, it is a way of life open to all people. See Going Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical Life at the end of the chapter for more.Ethics FYIArgumentIn philosophy, an argument is a set of claims. Some of these claims, called the premises, serve as support for another claim, called the conclusion. This is different than the ordinary meaning of an argument as a verbal quarrel or disagreement, often characterized by raised voices and flaring emotions. One can think of an argument in the philosophical sense as the methodical and well-researched defense of a position or point of view advanced in relation to a disputed issue.Going Deeper: Ethics and ReligionMany readers have religious commitments that inform their ethical views. Is there a conflict between such religious commitments and the philosophical study of ethics? See Going Deeper: Ethics and Religion at the end of this chapter for more.
Section 1.2 Ethical ReasoningIn some cases we may find that certain claims are well supported, while others seem much less so, even if we are far from absolute certainty. In other cases we may find ourselves more perplexed than when we started, which calls us to keep the question open and continue to reflect and search. Either way, we will be less subject to the whims of popular opinion, the power of persuasion, and attractive personalities and be more capable of forming and defend-ing our own answers to the question of how one should live.1.2 Ethical ReasoningWhat is ethical reasoning? There are many conflicting answers to this question that reflect different ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We will exam-ine each of these theories closely in the chapters to come. However, some features of ethical reasoning are common to all of the major theories.The “Dialectic” Between the Abstract and ConcreteEthical enquiry involves a dialectic. This term refers to the process of moving back and forth between abstract judgments—general considerations about values, rules, the purpose of things, and so on—and concrete judgments—those having to do with particular questions and problems, such as what’s right to do here and how. This process is undertaken in an attempt to find what philosopher John Rawls (1971) called “reflective equilibrium” (p. 18).For example, we might start with a concrete ethical judgment with which most people would agree, such as that it is wrong to exploit a child to satisfy one’s sexual urges—a form of what we call child abuse. We would then consider why this act is wrong. Is it because it causes great suffering for the child, both at the time of the abuse and later in life? Is it because it violates a rule not to treat innocent children as objects of gratification? Is it because it is a corruption of the role we have of nurturing and caring for the next generation?Our answer would then have implications for other, more disputed situations, such as whether it is right to spank a child or to use modern science to change a child’s genetic code. In other words, on these more disputed questions we are looking for reasons why certain behaviors or choices might be right or wrong or better or worse. We can sometimes try to find them by considering the reasons we have for other more commonly accepted judgments of right, wrong, better, or worse. These reasons are the abstract part of the dialectic, while the specific judgments are the concrete part.Similarly, we might start with commonly accepted abstract ideas such as “be honest” or “thou shalt not kill.” We then consider whether and how “thou shalt not kill” applies to the concrete situation of soldiers in combat or when one person is threatening another’s life. Or we might consider whether those we are obliged not to kill include nonhuman animals, human fetuses, or the terminally ill. Similarly, does “be honest” mean that we must give Aunt Gertrude our honest opinion when she asks if we like her new dress (and we think it is hideous)? Or that we must honestly answer a psychopath’s question of where our friend is hiding when doing so will likely lead to our friend’s murder?
Section 1.2 Ethical ReasoningSuch considerations of the concrete application of an abstract value, rule, or principle might compel us to revise or even reject it in favor of a more refined principle. On the other hand, if we are convinced that something is wrong and this is explained by some general principle, we may find that applying the same principle to a case we are less sure about ends up entailing that it, too, must also be wrong.Why is this important? If we simply stick with abstract values, rules, and principles (such as be honest or thou shalt not kill) without looking carefully at how they apply to a variety of concrete cases, we can become lost in a sea of ideas that leave us confused with respect to particular questions and choices; or we might be unable to appreciate the challenging impli-cations these ideas can have for our choices and judgments. On the other hand, if we simply consider concrete cases and rely on our gut instincts or what we have been accustomed to believe about them, we will be unable to adequately consider more abstract questions. Such questions include the following:• Why do people disagree, and can their disagreements be resolved?• What assumptions are people making when they express moral beliefs, and are they legitimate?• What is valuable and worthwhile, and are there any objective answers to that question?Moral theories like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics deal largely with the abstract side of this dialectic. They consider questions such as the following:• What is the nature of morality?• What principles should guide moral reasoning?• What rights or obligations should we respect?• What kind of life is most worth living, and what would be the characteristics of such a life?Defending and justifying these abstract ideas will require a person to consider the concrete implications of one abstract theory compared to another. In other words, while we will exam-ine the general claims a theory makes about how one should live, and the values and assump-tions that underlie these claims, we will also consider what that means for our specific lives and choices.We might find that while a theory seems plausible in the abstract and helps us make sense of certain concrete judgments that seem right, on further reflection we might decide that it also supports other concrete judgments that are questionable or seem wrong. When con-fronted with such concrete judgments, we must therefore back up and reexamine the theory’s abstract ideas. If those ideas still seem right, then we might have to reconsider our concrete judgments. However, if we think there are problems with the theory itself, our task is then to examine what those might be and whether a different set of principles and values would bet-ter guide us.
Section 1.2 Ethical ReasoningThis process should not be regarded as a matter of merely picking and choosing which theory to follow when confronted with a moral problem. For instance, after reading Chapters 3 (on utilitarianism) and 4 (on deontology), one might say, “The utilitarian would say that thus-and-such is morally right, while a Kantian would say that thus-and-such is morally wrong.” It may be tempting to add, “One must simply choose which theory to follow when considering a particular problem and form one’s beliefs and decisions accordingly.”This will not do, however, because these theories aim for consistency between the abstract values, principles, and rules that define the theory and the plausibility of the concrete judg-ments that the theory entails. If utilitarianism, for instance, seems the best way to reason about one particular case, then it should likewise be the best way to reason about any other case. If utilitarianism seems to lead to a problem when applied to another case, it suggests there may be a problem with utilitarianism itself, and it becomes no longer clear that it was the best way to reason about the first case.Ethics FYIConsistencyWhen the general rules, principles, and values of an ethical theory seem right, and they support and explain judgments about particular cases that also seem right, there is consistency between the general and the particular (or the abstract and the concrete, to use other terms). Inconsistency arises when the general or abstract does not cohere with the particular or concrete.For example, someone might hold to the general rule that killing is always wrong, but he or she may also support the death penalty. This would appear inconsistent because the death penalty involves killing, and so if one supports it, then one is denying the principle that killing is always wrong. Therefore, to be consistent, one would either need to reject the death penalty or revise the principle in such a way so that killing is justified in the case of those convicted of certain crimes.If there is an inconsistency or disconnect between the theory and the conclusions it supports, then further explanation, revision, or rejection is in order. We may need to explain how the values, rules, and principles of the theory support the concrete judgment that seems most plausible; we may revise the theory’s principles so they are more consistently applicable to a range of cases; or we may need to either reject the theory or reject the concrete judgments that called the theory into question.The bottom line is that no one who advocates for a certain abstract theory of moral reasoning believes that the theory will apply in some cases while another theory applies to other cases. But neither does anyone believe that our particular concrete moral judgments and choices
Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoningare arbitrary, without any reasoning behind them. We should strive for consistency and harmony between the particular judgments and choices that we make regarding con-crete situations and the general reasons we have for making them.Practical Reasoning in Everyday LifeMoral reasoning can seem complicated and daunting, and oftentimes it is. However, it is not that different from the way we rea-son about everyday choices—what we call practical reasoning, or reasoning about what to do. Consider being a student. How should one best live out the goals of a stu-dent? A student has certain concrete aims, such as passing a class, obtaining a degree, and learning. There are other consider-ations involved, such as the financial cost of pursuing these goals and the impacts these pur-suits have on one’s career and perhaps on one’s family.Concrete questions might include “What courses should I take?,” “How much time should I devote to my studies?,” and “Should I cheat on this assignment?” These questions might bump up against more abstract questions such as “Is it more worthwhile to study philosophy or to study computer science?,” “Does coaching my son’s Little League Baseball team take priority over learning about the French Revolution?,” or “Is my goal simply to obtain a good grade, or does it include becoming educated in a certain subject?” Answering these questions would then lead to deeper questions about what is most important in life, as the words worthwhile, priority, and goal indicate.Moral reasoning works in much the same way and overlaps with these kinds of real-life ques-tions (note the question about cheating, for example). It may seem that many such questions pertaining to being a student are matters of personal choice that one must answer for oneself, as opposed to questions that have objectively right or wrong answers. Moral reasoning, on the other hand, is commonly thought to deal with a very particular set of concerns, such as those having to do with the impact of our choices on the lives of others. These are more than just matters of achieving our personal goals or following our individual desires. As such, is there a difference between moral reasoning and everyday practical reasoning?This is a matter of heated debate, and many philosophers do indeed draw a sharp distinction between “moral” matters and matters of practical concern, often in terms of the degree of impact our actions have on others. However, this distinction becomes complicated when we recognize how interconnected our lives are and how many of the choices that we might be inclined to consider personal or nonmoral are in fact laden with moral significance due to this interconnectedness.DialecticEthical reasoning involves moving back and forth between abstract rules, principles, and values and concrete judgments. Click here to read three example dialogues that illustrate this process. As you read them, try to notice when someone is proposing a general principle. Also notice when someone is challenging a general principle by using a concrete example. Does the first person modify the principle? Does the person hold on to it but try to clarify it? Are there points at which one person accepts the other person’s principle and has to rethink his or her views about a concrete case?See your eBook for videos of these scenarios.
Section 1.2 Ethical ReasoningConsider the following hypothetical scenario: Imag-ine you live in the United States in the 1850s, prior to the Civil War and before the slaves were emanci-pated. You need a new shirt and can choose between a cotton one that is nice but a little expensive and another shirt that seems just as nice but is a fraction of the cost. However, you find out that the second shirt is less expensive because the cotton used to produce it was picked by slaves, whereas the more expensive shirt was made from cotton picked by free persons who earned a decent wage.You strongly believe that slavery is a great evil and that Black people have every right to live as freely as White people. You may reason that by buying the less expensive shirt, you are using your money to help support this vile and evil industry. Perhaps you reason that even though your own individual choices won’t significantly impact this industry, you find it important that your choices align with and reflect your values—that as a person of integrity, you want to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. On the other hand, perhaps you may think that, although slavery is evil, it is a necessary evil when compared to the importance to you of being able to buy cheaper clothing. If clothing was more expensive, you may find it more difficult to provide adequate food for your children. Or you may not be able to have as many items of clothing or enjoy the latest fashions. Some reasons for want-ing cheaper clothing produced by slaves may seem important (even if they don’t outweigh the evils of slavery), some relatively trivial and selfish. The crucial point is that the choice of which shirt to buy, though an everyday choice and one you may have thought to be merely personal or morally neutral, is in fact a choice with moral significance.We all face decisions like this in our contemporary lives—decisions we may be inclined to regard as a matter of personal choice, rather than morally significant, but that turn out to have moral significance after all.Consider, for example, an everyday activity like eating or shopping for food. Eating at a res-taurant or having a summer barbeque with friends can be either greatly enjoyable, boring and mundane, or stressful and hectic. Because of this, we easily overlook the many ways that our choices involve us in complex and intricate webs, the strands of which have recognizably moral dimensions.For example, as we will discuss in a later chapter, the ways that farm animals are commonly raised would distress many people if they were aware of those conditions. Additionally, inexpensive produce is often the result of farmers and factories engaging in practices not too far removed from slave labor: employing undocumented immigrants at a fraction of the wages that would be paid to legal workers and forcing them to work long hours in danger-ous, unregulated environments (there is even evidence that some industries still use actual slave labor; Estabrook, 2011). The crops we eat are often sprayed with chemicals that have detrimental impacts on the environment. These and other production methods make food Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock Would you pay a higher price for your cotton to avoid supporting the institution of slavery?
Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoningcheap, convenient, and enjoyable—but arguably in ways that, for many consumers, conflict with their moral values.Without getting into these specific debates, the main point to consider is that the kinds of everyday choices we make about what to eat or buy—whether motivated by cost or desire for certain kinds of products or simply made without much thought at all—turn out to be morally significant because our in-store choices connect us (and our wallets) to larger webs.Similar things can be said of other choices we may regard as morally insignificant or merely personal. What will my career choice mean for my family? If I look away when individuals are doing wrong, does this mean I believe that those individuals’ right to do what they want is more important than the rights of the people they are harming? Do people’s personal choices express a certain attitude about the nature and value of certain forms of human life, and what would be the implications if they applied that attitude to other circumstances? Would we think it is no longer a matter of personal choice?Who’s to Say?We will examine many concrete examples of choices, policies, and judgments in the course of our study. As we do so, undoubtedly there will be times when you will think, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong? We should just leave it up to each person to decide.” This will be espe-cially tempting regarding matters that are very complex or those that feature different and contentious ideas about what is most worthwhile in life, the nature of humans and the world, and similar issues. In the next chapter, we will examine philosophical positions that challenge the idea that moral reasoning can lead to judgments that are objective or true for everyone. Before looking at these challenges, however, there are a few things to consider that might help us think more critically about the “who’s to say?” attitude, especially when it seems to release us from the burden of moral reasoning.First, the mere fact that there are different opinions does not mean that each opinion is equally valid. To be sure, there are cases in which different opinions are equally valid. For example, if one person feels that cilan-tro is a fresh and bright addition to many dishes, and another person finds that it tastes revoltingly like dish soap, it would be silly to think that one person is “right” and the other is “wrong.” This is a matter of taste (and perhaps genetics; McGee, 2010) and does not have any moral significance.However, consider an example in the oppo-site extreme. Suppose Person 1 believes that Jewish people are a scourge on society and that we would be better off if they were eliminated, and Person 2 is of the opposite opin-ion. Clearly this is not like differing opinions on cilantro. Person 2 would, no doubt, insist that Going Deeper: “Who Am I to Say?”Sometimes people refrain from taking a stand on a moral issue because they do not think they are yet in a position to do so, and thus they remain undecided. Or they may think they cannot or should not take a stand and thus believe they have to remain neutral. Is there a difference? See Going Deeper: “Who am I to Say?”: Neutral vs. Undecided at the end of this chapter for more.
Section 1.2 Ethical ReasoningPerson 1’s opinion isn’t just different, but wrong. He or she might add that Person 1’s opinion reveals something perverse or corrupt about his or her way of thinking and feeling.Second, even if we question the possibility of a clear-cut right or wrong verdict on some moral questions, we can still maintain that certain opinions on those questions are better and others are worse. In fact, this is the view that most philosophers take. Few philosophers who work on moral issues think that every morally significant question can be given a clear yes or no answer. Many will argue that some questions are cut-and-dried (such as whether it is permis-sible to enslave people or to sexually abuse a child). However, there are other questions on which they might believe that one position is better than another, while acknowledging that the opposing view has some merit. In other words, they maintain that the reasons supporting one view are, overall, stronger than the reasons supporting another view.Again, this isn’t much different from the practical reasoning we employ in everyday life. For example, if I wish to lose weight, then I have a good reason to abstain from eating cake. How-ever, if I’m celebrating my birthday, I might judge that the special circumstances of a birthday, plus the fact that one piece of cake won’t impact my overall weight, means that the reasons to enjoy a piece of cake on my birthday outweigh the reasons against it. On the other hand, I might be the sort of person who is easily given over to bad habits by indulging even once; I might feel that my weight-loss goal will be compromised if I am allowed a treat even on one day. All things considered, it may not be the case that eating a piece of cake is completely right or completely wrong, but if I am a thoughtful, honest, and careful practical reasoner, I can come to a conclusion about what the better decision might be, even if it is not the only good decision.Something similar can be said about many moral questions. A good moral reasoner will rec-ognize and appreciate that different answers to ethical questions will be based on various reasons, some of which are strong and some of which are weak. He or she will strive to dis-tinguish between those reasons, examine them, and form a judgment of which position has the overall strongest support. He or she may still admit that some reasons supporting his or her position are comparatively weak while others are quite strong. However, as we saw with everyday examples of practical reasoning, this need not prevent him or her from concluding that the overall strength of one position is greater than another, thus arriving at the judgment that this position represents the morally right thing to do.We have seen that the existence of different opinions on ethical issues does not mean that some opinions cannot be right and others wrong. And even if we are unable to clearly identify right from wrong, we can still distinguish better judgments and opinions from worse ones. Moral reasoning helps us make such distinctions. We have seen how this is not much differ-ent than the process of reasoning about everyday practical matters, many of which have far more ethical significance than we usually realize. This process involves moving back and forth between particular judgments we might make about specific cases and the rules, principles, values, and conceptions that make sense of (or challenge) these judgments.However, there are some deeper questions that persist. For one thing, how can we be sure that any process of reasoning leads to the right (or better) judgment about ethical issues? Even if we acknowledge that there might be some judgments or choices that are right or bet-ter compared to others, this does not yet mean that there really are such things. The existence
Section 1.3 The Landscape of Moral Philosophyof widespread disagreement among people and cultures both now and in the past might trig-ger doubts as to whether moral reasoning leads us toward anything like truth. Finally, even if we suppose that it could, there is a familiar conflict between what morality says we should do and what we want or what seems best for us at the individual level, which might lead many of us to question why we as individuals should even care about moral demands.Such questions open up a range of views that we will call moral skepticism, or doubts about whether the values, principles, and standards we normally associate with morality represent objective truths about the way we ought to live our lives. The theories of moral reasoning that we will focus on in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 try to show that there are objective moral truths, and in a moment we will provide a brief overview of those moral theories. Before we examine those theories in detail, Chapter 2 will pay special consideration to the reasons for skepticism about moral truth.First, though, let’s get a sense of the landscape of moral philosophy and the theories of moral reasoning.1.3 The Landscape of Moral PhilosophyChapters 3, 4, and 5 will each consider an important kind of approach to moral reasoning, represented by various moral theories. The theories will propose answers to questions like the following:• What is morality?• How does morality figure into a good human life?• What rules or principles should guide our decisions?• What virtues should we respect and cultivate?• What are our moral obligations in certain kinds of circumstances?• Can we have knowledge of our moral responsibilities?• Why should we be moral?The first question, “What is morality?,” or broader questions like “What do we mean by good and bad or right and wrong?,” as well as questions that deal with the possibility of moral knowledge, are usually regarded as questions for metaethics. Meta, a Greek word, can mean “behind” or “over and above.” Metaethics thus considers the concepts and questions that underlie ethical principles and judgments, such as whether values are real, whether moral beliefs can be true or false, and whether moral standards are universal or relative.Such questions are often explored independently of the other questions we just listed. For instance, one might hold that the term good describes a type of property, like color and size. On the other hand, one might maintain that when we call something “good,” we aren’t identi-fying a property but expressing an attitude. However, people who disagree on these metaethi-cal claims might nevertheless agree on fundamental moral principles or what we ought to do in particular circumstances.
Section 1.3 The Landscape of Moral PhilosophyTheories that consider questions about rules, principles, virtues, and the good human life are all part of what we call normative ethics. This field is called normative ethics because it con-siders questions that involve “norms” (i.e., standards for how one should live and act). We all live by norms; it would be impossible not to, since they are part of how we make sense of our actions. Normative ethics examines norms to work out their details, consider their strength, and show why we should respect them.The third branch of ethics examines the con-crete moral problems faced in actual life. Because this task involves applying the more abstract ideas of the other two branches to concrete cases, we call this applied ethics. Arguments about abortion, whether we should eat animals, whether doctors should lie to their patients, or whether we should download copyrighted material to our computers all fall under the category of applied ethics, since they involve putting into place the forms of ethi-cal reasoning defended by normative ethical theories.As we previously mentioned, Chapter 2 is devoted to some major metaethical challenges, though these kinds of questions will also arise as we examine the different normative theories in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.Distinguishing the Major Ethical TheoriesHistorically, there have been three main approaches to normative ethics, which can be roughly distinguished along the following lines. Ethics obviously concerns human action. If we think about a typical human action, what are its main components? First, there is the person per-forming the action—the agent. Second, there is the action itself—what is being done. Third, there are certain results or consequences brought about by the action.If we regard human actions as consisting of these three aspects, then the main difference between these moral theories has to do with which aspect the theory takes to be fundamental when it comes to moral reasoning and moral value.The three parts of human action are as follows:1. The nature and character of the person performing the action2. The nature of the action itself3. The consequences of the actionHighwaystarz-Photography/iStock/ThinkstockArguments about the treatment and use of stock animals like these dairy cows would fall into applied ethics.
Section 1.3 The Landscape of Moral PhilosophyThe three major moral theories can be distinguished in the following way:1. Virtue ethics focuses on the nature and character of the person performing the action.2. Deontological ethics focuses on the action itself.3. Consequentialist ethics focuses on the consequences of the action.When moral philosophers examine and debate these theories, they ask certain questions. Among these are the following:• Do these theories, when applied to concrete cases, give us good answers to ethical questions?• Do these theories reflect and do justice to our best understanding of what it means to be human and to live a good life?• Do these theories justify the sense of morality as authoritative or binding (i.e., do they prescribe how we ought to act regardless of our own interests and desires)? In other words, do they adequately show why we ought to respect the moral standards they defend?By asking such questions, we engage in a dialectic process in which we try to make sense of the more abstract ideas the theories are defending but do so by considering their concrete implications. As discussed earlier, a theory that seems right in the abstract or when applied to some cases might be much more questionable when other concrete implications are consid-ered. On the other hand, a theory that seems right in the abstract might force us to reconsider our concrete moral judgments when they conflict. We might also feel compelled to be skepti-cal about ethics in some way, which is a possibility that we will examine in detail in Chapter 2.As we proceed through this study, many readers will undoubtedly feel skeptical and frustrated from time to time. After all, brilliant minds have been applying themselves to these questions for millennia, and yet we seem as far from any kind of consensus or resolution as we ever were. Moreover, philosophical thinking can be hard, and many of us are not used to it. In today’s world, we can find it difficult to focus our attention long enough to process arguments and ideas, especially when we have jobs and chores to attend to, mouths to feed, social media to check, papers to write, and various forms of entertainment in which we would rather indulge.However, the persistence of these questions, and the fact that people have been engaging in this enterprise for thousands of years despite so much disagreement, is something we can-not ignore, and it might give us hope that there really is something to be gained from it. More important is the fact that we stressed at the outset: These are questions we cannot avoid, since all of us are, each day, living out an answer to them.The aim of this book is to help these questions come alive to you—to compel you to turn off the TV, close out the Internet pages, remove yourself from the chores and kids, and spend some time reflecting on the importance of these questions, and the implications of the various answers, to your own life and the world around us.However, this task need not—and should not—be solitary. Bring up these ideas at the dinner table with family or over a beer or coffee with friends. Ask coworkers what they think during
Section 1.3 The Landscape of Moral Philosophydowntime at work. Immerse yourself in a classroom discussion. After all, the history and cur-rent developments of philosophical ethics are best seen as an ongoing conversation about how to live. Conversation is one of the primary ways through which ideas are understood, our own personal views are formed and solidified, and our distinctive human capacity to question and enquire is put into practice.Our ProcedureThe following is an outline of the rest of the book.Chapter 2: Skepticism About EthicsWhen we make claims about how one should live, what kinds of actions are right or wrong, what kinds of outcomes are good or bad, or what it means to be a good person, are these the kinds of claims that can be true or false? Are moral values real? Do they represent facts about the world or our lives, or are they something else, like expressions of feeling or attitude? Are values objective, in the sense that certain things are right or good independent of culture, his-tory, or individual preference? Or are they relative to such factors, such that something might be right for one culture but wrong for another? Is a moral life truly the best way for anyone to live, or can we imagine cases in which we would be better off ignoring such standards?Such questions confront us with possible reasons to be skeptical of the assumption people generally make about morality; that is, to doubt whether there are such things as reality, truth, or objectivity when it comes to answering ethical questions. We will also consider responses to such skeptical doubts, which will then open up the possibility that the theories and posi-tions we will consider in subsequent chapters might be capable of rational justification.Chapters 3–5: Normative EthicsThe next three chapters focus on the three most familiar and influential accounts of how to reason about moral questions and what justifies answers to them. The chapters give an account of the norms that should inform our thinking and choices; hence, they are called nor-mative ethical theories. We will proceed backward from the most recent and perhaps most familiar theory to the most ancient. By proceeding this way, we can examine any weaknesses in the older theories that the newer ones have overcome, or conversely, whether there are important strengths in the older approaches that the newer ones have lost sight of.Chapter 3: Utilitarianism: Making the World a Better PlaceIn this chapter, we will examine the first of the three major ethical theories: utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an approach to moral questions that distinguishes morally right or wrong actions in terms of their consequences. In particular, utilitarianism holds that moral actions are those that lead to the greatest amount of happiness and least amount of suffering for all those affected. We will spend some time reading and thinking about the defense of this prin-ciple by the 18th-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill.
Section 1.3 The Landscape of Moral PhilosophyChapter 4: Deontology: Doing One’s DutyThis chapter looks at the second major ethical theory: deontology. This theory argues that we have certain moral duties that we must respect regardless of our situation, who we are, or the consequences of doing so. These duties might be central to a culture or religious tradition, taken to derive from human nature or the nature of the world itself, or regarded as integral to what it means to make free, rational choices. This last idea is what we will spend the most time examining by looking carefully at the ideas of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.Chapter 5: Virtue Ethics: Being a Good PersonThe third major ethical theory that we will examine is virtue ethics. This view holds that the primary ethical concern has to do with the sorts of people we ought to be and the character traits (or virtues) needed to be good people. This ancient view has taken many forms, the most influential of which was inspired by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who gave us an account of what it means to flourish and the kind of character necessary for flourishing.Chapters 6–10: Ethical IssuesWhile we will examine concrete examples from time to time as we attempt to understand and evaluate the normative theories, the last section of the book will examine some of the most important and challenging ethical issues in our contemporary lives. Chapters 6–9 dis-cuss some of the most hotly contested debates in detail, while Chapter 10 provides a brief introduction to many other moral issues, along with a bibliography of readings that explore them in depth.Chapter 6: AbortionEver since Roe v. Wade legalized elective abortion in 1973, few issues have been as consis-tently divisive or incendiary. A consequence is that the reasoned arguments for different posi-tions often get lost in the sea of passionate rhetoric. This chapter will attempt to present and examine those arguments in such a way that readers will be able to respect and appreciate differing views, even while maintaining belief in the overriding strength of their own position.Chapter 7: Assisted DyingUnlike abortion, on which public opinion has tended to remain evenly divided, the past decade has witnessed rapid changes in law as well as public opinion on euthanasia and assisted sui-cide, which are both ways in which medical practice assists with the process of dying, along with palliative care. Is this trend positive or negative? Should physicians and other medical personnel directly end the lives of patients or assist patients who choose to end their own lives? Or should their practice be limited to the activity of healing and providing relief from pain without crossing over into the provision of life-ending treatments? These questions raise deeper issues such as the meaning of medicine, human dignity and autonomy, and the signifi-cance of pain and suffering that impact many other issues beyond assisted dying.
Section 1.3 The Landscape of Moral PhilosophyChapter 8: BiotechnologyMany of the most challenging contemporary ethical issues we face have emerged as a result of the rapid growth in our capacity to control and manipulate the biological world, including but not limited to the human body. Are there limits to the ways that biotechnology should be used to treat diseases and enhance human lives? For instance, should we clone human beings? Should we modify the human genetic code in ways that make us smarter or less prone to disease? Should parents be able to choose certain characteristics of their children such as sex or eye color? Is it morally permissible to experiment on humans and/or other animals? We will consider how ethicists have defended various positions on these kinds of questions, which can serve as a model for how one might approach the many other issues that continu-ally arise.Chapter 9: Animals and EatingEthics isn’t simply concerned with major hot-button issues like abortion and assisted dying. It also concerns the kinds of choices we make every day, such as our eating choices. This is especially so when it comes to eating meat and other animal products. Do humans have ethi-cal responsibilities toward animals, and are those responsibilities respected or violated by the ways animals are raised and slaughtered for food? How do these responsibilities extend toward us as consumers of animal products? We will consider arguments for a range of posi-tions having to do with the raising and treatment of animals and our ethical responsibilities as consumers, views that are often at odds with one another on the specific details but agree that these are matters of profound ethical importance.Chapter 10: Other Issues in Applied EthicsThe discussions in Chapters 6–9 demonstrate the process of considering arguments on mul-tiple sides of ethical topics, representing them as faithfully as possible, and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, all of which are essential parts of forming a reasoned position on the questions at issue. This chapter will present brief introductions to a range of other broad ethical topics, followed by a bibliography with readings that represent a diversity of positions when possible. This will give you the chance to examine the arguments for yourself. Topics include our ethical responsibilities toward the environment; the ethics of war, torture, and terrorism; capital punishment; same-sex marriage; and global poverty.Going DeeperDid something in this chapter catch your interest? Want to get a little more in depth with some of the theory, or learn about how it can be applied? Check out these features at the end of the chapter.Ethics Versus MoralitySocrates and the Philosophical LifeEthics and ReligionDialectic Scenarios“Who Am I to Say?”: Neutral Versus Undecided
Conclusion & SummaryConclusion & SummaryAs we have seen, moral philosophy is a reflective and systematic attempt to provide justi-fied answers to questions concerning the choices we ought to make, the ends that are worth pursuing, how we ought to treat each other, what kinds of people we ought to be, and many other issues that fall under the general question of how one should live. These questions have been pursued by people at every level of society since time immemorial, which suggests that the pursuit of answers to these questions is a fundamental characteristic of human life itself.Addressing ethical questions philosophically involves considering abstract principles, rules, and values, as well as concrete cases, in an attempt to find reflective equilibrium—a process called dialectic. Moral theories like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics articulate and defend accounts of the abstract principles, rules, and values and invite us to evaluate those accounts by considering their implications for our own lives and our relation to the world around us.According to Socrates and many others inspired by his example, philosophical ethics—and philosophy in general—is more than just an academic or intellectual exercise; more than a set of abstract theories, facts, or definitions; more than a method of solving problems; and certainly more than a skill that allows one to win arguments. Rather, in its most fundamental sense, it is a way of life open to all people (Hadot, 1995). What is this way of life?• It is a way of life in which we refuse to simply take for granted what we think we know.• It is a way of life in which we refuse to be content with the way things seem or feel.• It is a way of life in which we refuse to unreflectively follow the crowds, do what others do, or do what we have always done.• It is a way of life that prizes honesty, authenticity, and above all, truth.In short, Socrates considered philosophy to be a kind of life that embodies exactly what the word philosophy means: the “love of wisdom.” A life that loves and pursues wisdom, truth, and authenticity can be tedious, uncomfortable, and distressing, but it also provides us with a depth, richness, and freedom that cannot otherwise be obtained. This text invites you into that kind of life.Key Termsapplied ethics The area of ethics that focuses on concrete moral problems.consequentialist ethics Ethical systems that maintain that the moral value of actions or policies depends on their consequences.deontological ethics Ethical systems that maintain that the moral value of actions depends on some feature of the action itself.dialectic A process of reasoning that involves moving back and forth between abstract and concrete judgments.metaethics The area of ethics focused on the underlying status of ethical concepts, such as whether values are real, whether moral beliefs can be true or false, and whether moral standards are universal or relative.
Conclusion & Summarymoral duties Obligations that one must respect regardless of the situation, one’s identity, or the consequences.moral skepticism Doubts about whether the values, principles, and standards nor-mally associated with morality represent objective truths.normative ethics The area of ethics focused on the kinds of actions that are right and wrong, the rules and principles we ought to follow, the virtues we ought to culti-vate, and the character of a good human life.practical reasoning Reasoning about what to do. This is contrasted with moral reasoning, which is concerned with the way things are.reflective equilibrium A state of balance between the general principles we affirm and the particular, concrete judgments we make.virtue ethics Ethical systems that focus on identifying and describing the kinds of character traits or virtues that are integral to living a good human life.Additional ResourcesAskPhilosophers (http://www.askphilosophers.org/). A forum in which people can submit questions, and trained philosophers do their best to respond to them. To date, it has answered thousands of questions on dozens of topics.Ethics Matters (http://ethicsmatterstvseries.com/). An Australian youth-oriented television show that has 12-minute episodes (available online) on some aspect of ethical theory or a contemporary moral or political problem.Hi-Phi Nation (https://hiphination.org/). A podcast about philosophy that “turns stories into ideas.”Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/). An excellent scholarly resource for introductions to many philosophical topics.Open Culture (http://www.openculture.com/philosophy_free_courses). Links to free philosophy courses that you can watch or listen to.Philosophical Installations (https://philinstall.uoregon.edu/). A comprehensive collection of videos on all sorts of philosophical topics.Philosophy Bites (http://philosophybites.com/). Podcasts featuring short, accessible interviews with philoso-phers on a variety of topics.Philosophy Talk (https://www.philosophytalk.org/). A radio program, listenable online, featuring philosophers Ken Taylor and John Perry discussing a wide range of topics with various guests.PhilPapers (https://philpapers.org/). A massive database of philosophical articles and books. While its size can be daunting, many topics provide brief overviews of the literature, including suggestions for starting points.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/). Scholarly yet accessible articles on almost every major philosophical topic and figure, written and peer reviewed by experts in the fields. The best philosophical resource available online.The Stone (https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-stone). A regular blog on the New York Times website that features contemporary philosophers writing on a wide variety of topics.1000-Word Philosophy (https://1000wordphilosophy.wordpress.com/). Very short (5–10 minute) introductions to various philosophical topics, including bibliographies. Useful as a starting point for deeper inquiries.Wi-Phi (http://www.wi-phi.com/). Short, animated videos on a variety of philosophical topics.
Primary SourcePrimary SourcePlato’s Myth of the Cave514 Next, I said, compare the effect of education and of the lack of it on our nature to an experience like this: Imagine human beings living in an underground, cavelike dwell-ing, with an entrance a long way up, which is both open to the light and as wide as the cave itself. They’ve been there since childhood, fixed in the same place, with their necks and legs fettered, able to see only in front of them, because their bonds prevent them from turning their heads around. Light is provided by a fireb burning far above and behind them. Also behind them, but on higher ground, there is a path stretching between them and the fire. Imagine that along this path a low wall has been built, like the screen in front of puppeteers above which they show their puppets. I’m imagining it. Then also imagine that there are people along the wall, carrying all kinds of artifacts that project above it—statues of people andc other animals, made out of stone, wood, and every material. And, as you’d expect,515 some of the carriers are talking, and some are silent. It’s a strange image you’re describing, and strange prisoners. They’re like us. Do you suppose, first of all, that these prisoners see anything of them-selves and one another besides the shadows that the fire casts on the wall in front of them? How could they, if they have to keep their heads motionless through-out life?b What about the things being carried along the wall? Isn’t the same true of them? Of course. And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them? They’d have to. And what if their prison also had an echo from the wall facing them? Don’t you think they’d believe that the shadows passing in front of them were talking whenever one of the carriers passing along the wall was doing so? I certainly do.
Primary Sourcec Then the prisoners would in every way believe that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of those artifacts. They must surely believe that. Consider, then, what being released from their bonds and cured of their ignorance would naturally be like, if something like this came to pass. When one of them was freed and suddenly compelled to stand up, turn his head, walk, and look up toward the light, he’d be pained and dazzled and unable to see the things whose shadows he’d seen before. What do you think he’d say, if we told him that what he’d seend before was inconsequential, but that now—because he is a bit closer to the things that are and is turned towards things that are more—he sees more correctly? Or, to put it another way, if we pointed to each of the things passing by, asked him what each of them is, and compelled him to answer, don’t you think he’d be at a loss and that he’d believe that the things he saw earlier were truer than the ones he was now being shown? Much truer. And if someone compelled him to look at the light itself, wouldn’t his eyes hurt, ande wouldn’t he turn around and flee towards the things he’s able to see, believing that they’re really clearer than the ones he’s being shown? He would. And if someone dragged him away from there by force, up the rough, steep path, and didn’t let him go until he had dragged him into the sunlight, wouldn’t he be pained and irritated at being treated that way? And when he came into the light,516 with the sun filling his eyes, wouldn’t he be unable to see a single one of the things now said to be true? He would be unable to see them, at least at first. I suppose, then, that he’d need time to get adjusted before he could see things in the world above. At first, he’d see shadows most easily, then images of men and other things in water, then the things themselves. Of these, he’d be able to studyb the things in the sky and the sky itself more easily at night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than during the day, looking at the sun and the light of the sun. Of course.
Primary Source Finally, I suppose, he’d be able to see the sun, not images of it in water or some alien place, but the sun itself, in its own place, and be able to study it. Necessarily so. And at this point he would infer and conclude that the sun provides the seasons andc the years, governs everything in the visible world, and is in some way the cause of all the things that he used to see. It’s clear that would be his next step. What about when he reminds himself of his first dwelling place, his fellow prisoners, and what passed for wisdom there? Don’t you think that he’d count himself happy for the change and pity the others? Certainly. And if there had been any honors, praises, or prizes among them for the one who was sharpest at identifying the shadows as they passed by and who best remembered which usually came earlier, which later, andd which simultaneously, and who could thus best divine the future, do you think that our man would desire these rewards or envy those among the prisoners who were honored and held power? Instead, wouldn’t he feel, with Homer, that he’d much prefer to “work the earth as a serf to another, one without possessions,” and go through any sufferings, rather than share their opinions and live as they do?e I suppose he would rather suffer anything than live like that. Consider this too. If this man went down into the cave again and sat down in his same seat, wouldn’t his eyes—coming suddenly out of the sun like that—be filled with darkness? They certainly would. And before his eyes had recovered—and the adjustment would not be quick—while517 his vision was still dim, if he had to compete again with the perpetual prisoners in rec-ognizing the shadows, wouldn’t he invite ridicule? Wouldn’t it be said of him that he’d returned from his upward journey with his eyesight ruined and that it isn’t worthwhile even to try to travel upward? And, as for anyone who tried to free them and lead them upward, if they could somehow get their hands on him, wouldn’t they kill him? They certainly would.Source: “Myth of the Cave” from Plato, Republic, translated by G.M.A. Grube, revised by C.D.C. Reeve (Hackett Publishing Company, 1992). Reprinted with permission from Hackett Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Going DeeperGoing DeeperEthics Versus MoralityIn this book, we will use the terms ethics and morality interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. This is for simplicity’s sake and reflects the fact that most of our ordinary uses of the terms do not draw any significant distinctions. It is also because philosophers generally do not agree on definitions for either of these terms, and there is not a way to distinguish them that would be standard or uncontroversial. Nevertheless, if we were to survey in detail the various ways that philosophers have used these terms throughout history, we would find some notable distinctions. Such a survey cannot be undertaken here, but we can briefly indi-cate some of the more prominent ways in which such a distinction has been drawn.First, the terms have different historical origins. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word êthos, which originally meant something like “character” or “manner of life.” Morality derives from a Latin word, mores, meaning “custom” or “habit,” which is similar to what the Greeks meant by êthos but not quite identical. Moreover, the Christian and Jewish traditions had a strong influence on the Latin language during the Middle Ages, and since these traditions placed a greater emphasis on notions of law and duty than the Greeks did, the term morality came to have a much stronger legalistic sense than the original notion of êthos (Williams, 1985).We thus find philosophers distinguishing between the notions of ethics and morality by asso-ciating morality with a set of rules, duties, or obligations, and ethics with a broader sense of the good at which our lives aim. For instance, we might identify a moral system with God’s commands, the natural order, the rights and duties we must respect as human beings, or the best consequences. The duties and obligations are generally regarded as inescapable and overriding. They are inescapable in the sense that I have these duties regardless of whether I want to, and they override any other reason I might have for doing something (for instance, if I have a moral duty not to lie, then this reasoning will override any possible reason I might have to lie).On the other hand, ethics might be associated with the aims and virtues of a flourishing human life, as it was for the Greeks. Or it may refer to the aims and values characteristically pursued within a certain area of human life like business or medicine, or those associated with a par-ticular religious or cultural tradition. Hence, we have terms like medical ethics, Jewish ethics, or Greek ethics. While this may involve certain rules or obligations, it will generally be much broader, encompassing understandings of meaning, virtue, value, and good behavior that are often richer but also less clear and determinate than rules or obligations.In short, one way to draw such a distinction is to associate morality with what one should do and ethics with how one should be.Again, however, neither this nor any other way of distinguishing the terms is definitive or absolutely correct, when considering all of the ways that philosophers have used them.
Going DeeperSocrates and the Philosophical LifeWhen we study ethics formally or simply engage in ethical reflection, we examine our ideas about right, wrong, good, and bad—the kinds of ideas that lie behind our judgments that some answers to Socrates’s question might be better than others. Examining these questions leads us even deeper into questions about who or what we are as human beings; how we ought to understand the world within which we act; whether there is a God, and what, if any-thing, this God might have to do with us; whether and how we can have knowledge of any of these things; what good reasoning involves; and other deep questions concerning human life, meaning, and truth. In short, pursuing ethical questions involves many other areas of philo-sophical inquiry, such as the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of religion, and logic.Naturally, we cannot pursue any of these other topics in detail, but they will surface from time to time. When they do, and indeed throughout the journey of this text, there will undoubtedly be parts that are confusing, tedious, and just flat-out unintelligible, not to mention parts that will be maddening, give offense, or seem plain stupid. Not only can philosophy be difficult, it can challenge and unsettle us by exposing weaknesses in our convictions. For these reasons, philosophy has often been regarded with indifference, contempt, and even hostility—at best a pastime that may be interesting for some people but certainly not for everyone, and at worst a source of potential confusion and corruption that distracts from more important practical affairs.These attitudes toward philosophy are far from new, and to see this, let’s revisit Socrates for a moment. He sought to engage the people of Athens, his home city, in philosophical argument and urged them toward ethical reflection. The Athenians found Socrates such a nuisance that they put him on trial on exaggerated charges and ultimately sentenced him to death. In his defense during his trial, recorded by his greatest student, Plato (1997a), in a text called the Apology (which meant “defense” rather than “I’m sorry”), Socrates offers a vision of what philosophy is, why it matters, and why it is so easy to be dismissive or antagonistic toward it.For Socrates, philosophy (and philosophical ethics) is not a set of abstract theories, facts, or definitions; it is not a method of solving problems; and it is not simply a skill that allows one to win arguments. Rather, for Socrates, philosophy is at its heart a way of life (Hadot, 1995). What is this way of life?• It is a way of life in which we refuse to simply take for granted what we think we know.• It is a way of life in which we refuse to be content with the way things seem or feel.• It is a way of life in which we refuse to unreflectively follow the crowds, do what oth-ers do, or do what we have always done.• It is a way of life that prizes honesty, authenticity, and above all, truth.In short, Socrates considered philosophy to be a kind of life that embodies exactly what the word philosophy means: the “love of wisdom,” as opposed to the mere love of winning an argument, the love of making simple things complicated or complicated things simple, or the love of that which feels familiar and safe.
Going DeeperA life that loves and pursues wisdom, truth, and authenticity can be tedious, uncomfortable, and distressing, especially when it leads us to question what we thought we knew, what makes the most sense to us, or the things we enjoy and with which we are comfortable. It can alienate us from other people, from our culture and society, and even, in a sense, from our own selves. However, many of us know that when we love something, we are willing to endure almost any measure of tedium, discomfort, and distress for the sake of that which we love.Such was the case with Socrates: The love of wisdom and truth was far more important to him than any level of ease or comfort and even his own life. This kind of commitment is reflected in the lives of those of any culture or class, ancient or modern, great or small, who stand for what is ethically good and right, even when doing so is unpopular or involves great sacrifice. And it is a commitment any one of us today can embrace, no matter who we are.In a book called the Republic (Plato, 1997c), Socrates’s student Plato (ca. 429–347 BCE) pre-sents a dialogue that features Socrates as the main character. Socrates describes this process of taking up a philosophical life with a myth. In this myth, he describes the unreflective life—a life that is easiest and most comfortable—in terms of living in a cave wherein we only under-stand bits and pieces of the way things are but often can’t or don’t want to probe beyond that and seek “truth,” represented by the sun. Take a few moments to read this myth or watch an animated rendition of it, narrated by Orson Welles (search “Plato’s Cave” on YouTube).See the Primary Source section of the chapter for the text of The Myth of the CaveWhen we think about the “life inside the cave” and its real-life counterpart—the life that rests content with the way things seem or feel to us or with what we have always taken for granted—that life is often easier and more comfortable. However, many of us have experi-enced being challenged and pulled toward new ways of believing and acting, particularly on ethical matters. Think for a moment of an example from your own life in which your ethical beliefs have changed or in which you have come to question the choices you are accustomed to making. Perhaps this was based on some new information or an experience you had that challenged you to reconsider your decisions. When we “emerge from the darkness to light” and begin to question things, it can be difficult, disorienting, and even painful. It can be tempt-ing to return to the cave and live the way that seems most comfortable, rather than continue on the journey in pursuit of the light of truth of how one should live.But as anyone whose life has changed can attest, as we adjust to that light, we find that our own lives, the lives of others, and the world itself take on new meanings. Sometimes these new meanings are clear, and we know exactly why our beliefs or choices have changed; but often they are quite subtle and hardly noticeable, at least for a while. Either way, when our beliefs and choices change, it is frequently the case that we can no longer be content with the way things were before, and the “comfort” certain beliefs or ways of life once had are no lon-ger so comfortable. In this way Plato’s image of the cave represents both the promise and the peril that come when we reflect on ourselves, our ways of life, and the many related questions that will inevitably come up.
Going DeeperEthics and ReligionReligion, in some form or another, has been around as long, if not longer, than people have been discussing ethical questions from a philosophical perspective. Therefore, religion has played a major role in shaping the ethical norms and values of all cultures. Many readers likely have religious commitments, some quite strong and deep. When confronted with ethi-cal questions, people with such commitments often express one or more of the following kinds of ideas:• “One’s life should be lived according to God’s will.”• “All of the answers to moral questions can be found in the Bible.”• “Because I am a Christian, I believe thus-and-such is wrong.”The philosophical study of ethics is not necessarily meant to contradict any of those beliefs. In fact, many of the great moral philosophers have also been devoutly religious people, rejecting the idea that there was any contradiction between religious commitment and philosophical investigation, and instead maintaining that philosophy can supplement, expand, and deepen religious views.Consider that while religious texts like the Bible offer a great deal of moral guidance, ancient scriptures alone cannot answer all of the moral questions we face today. The Bible was writ-ten 2,000 years ago (and most of it is quite a bit older than that), long before modern technol-ogy, contemporary forms of government, cutting-edge scientific discoveries, and so forth. So while it might offer important guidelines for how to live life, it does not directly address many of the specific issues we face today.For instance, the Bible does not mention abortion, euthanasia, factory farming, nuclear war-fare, or genetic engineering. In fact, the Bible at times supports slavery, polygamy, killing those caught in adultery, slaughtering women and children in times of war, and other things most of us do not consider morally just. Few people today even attempt to follow all of the commands of the Bible, especially those contained in the laws of the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament). Think of the dietary restrictions (no pork, shellfish, etc.), for example. Similar remarks could be made about the limitations of other religious scriptures when it comes to providing moral guidance.Again, this is not to suggest that a religious text like the Bible is not God’s word or that it contains errors. Rather, it is to emphasize that everyone, even the most devout believer, looks beyond religious texts when considering ethical questions and uses reason to evaluate ethical questions. This book will explore how to do that.As a final point, there are reasons to suppose that the religious scriptures and traditions themselves support philosophical study of this sort. For example, here are a few things to consider from the Christian Bible:The philosophical study of ethics involves the use of reason, critical thinking, and logic to examine ethical questions. Jesus himself (whom scripture calls the “Logos” in John 1:1, which
Going Deeperis the root of the word logic) often used reasoning and logic to show why the Pharisees were wrong about certain matters, why it was important to be righteous and to love God, and so on. The Apostle Paul, whose letters make up many of the books of the New Testament, constantly used philosophical reasoning, and the book of Acts talks of his dialogues with philosophers (see especially Acts 17). The Apostle Peter said at one point, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).Moreover, many religious philosophers have maintained that reason is a gift that God has given us. Those who believe that God created humans “in the image and likeness of God” (Gen-esis 1:27) often take this to mean that God gave humans an ability to reason so that we can have knowledge of God and God’s will, something other creatures cannot enjoy. Specifically, religious philosophers have argued the following:• God created the world and everything in it, which means that it has a rational order to it that can be grasped (at least in part) by a rational mind.• God gave humans a rational mind so that they can come to know and appreciate the world and thereby know and appreciate God’s handiwork.• God gave humans the responsibility not just to love each other and love God but to use God’s gift of reason to come to a deeper understanding of what such love consists of.• God is supremely good, and the rational inquiry into the good is thus part of under-standing God, God’s will, and God’s purposes. Accordingly, the use of ethical reason to gain insight into what is good can be regarded as an important part of coming to understand God’s purposes and will, rather than conflicting with that aim.Finally, there is no denying that it can be risky to use logic and reason to examine our beliefs, be they religious or moral; we may end up feeling compelled to change them or give them up. But if you are coming from a religious perspective, you likely believe that God wants people to know and love him “with all their mind” (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Do you think that God would want us to know him with all of our mind and yet not want us to use the capacity for reason that he has given us?If you are religious, consider this study as a chance to develop and apply your God-given capacity for rational thought, specifically in working out the reasons and arguments for those ethical views that you might, from another angle, think of as God’s will for humanity today.Dialectic ScenariosPlease see your eBook for video versions of these scenarios.Carly and AllisonCarly and her sister Allison are having coffee, when Carly confesses that she recently had a one-night-stand with an old boyfriend. She also reveals that her husband, Grady, had asked if
Going Deeperanything had happened that night, and she lied and said no. Allison thinks that Carly should tell him the truth.Carly: I don’t see why I have to tell Grady. It was just one night; it’s not like it’s an ongoing thing.Allison: But you cheated on him, then you lied to him.Carly: Hey, you know what? I needed that. It was fun, it felt great, and sometimes I just have to do something for myself. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying yourself, right?Allison: But don’t you care about your marriage? About Grady?Carly: Of course I do, and that’s a big reason why I’m not going to tell him anything. I guess I should have said that there’s nothing wrong with enjoying yourself when it doesn’t hurt any-one else. Grady can’t be hurt by what he doesn’t know, and if I tell him, it’s only going to cause him unnecessary pain. Besides, our relationship has been a bit rocky lately, and if he knew about this it would only make things worse. So I was able to have some fun without hurting anyone else. What’s wrong with that?Allison: What’s wrong is that you lied.Carly: So?Allison: Well, how would you feel if he lied to you? Or if I lied to you? When you ask my opinion on something like a new haircut, you always say that you want the truth, even if it hurts.Carly: That’s a good point. Still, though, if you lied to me and I didn’t know about it, I wouldn’t be hurt by that, right? And if nothing bad came out of that lie, like me being embarrassed by a bad haircut, then I guess it wouldn’t be all that bad.Allison: What if he finds out? Or what if you got pregnant or caught an STD?Carly: Trust me, that won’t happen. I’m on the pill and we used protection. The only people who know about this are you, me, and my ex, and he swore he wouldn’t tell anyone ‘cause he’s got a wife and kids. And you won’t say anything, right?Allison: No, I won’t say anything, though I still think you should. Let’s suppose he never finds out unless you tell him. Even if you haven’t hurt him by lying, it seems to me that you’ve wronged him.Carly: How do you mean?Allison: Well, we can do wrong to someone even if they don’t suffer from it. You’re acting as if he doesn’t deserve to be told the truth. But everyone deserves the truth.
Going DeeperCarly: That’s another good point. Our parents did raise us to believe that. But do you remem-ber the time that Aunt Gertrude showed up to Ricki’s wedding with that new dress, and you leaned over to me and told me how awful you thought it looked? Are you saying you should have just gone up to her and told her that? That just seems cruel.Allison: That’s different, since that’s just my opinion, and she didn’t ask for it. If someone asks you a direct question, then it’s always wrong to lie.Carly: So what if she had asked you what you think? Would you have told her the truth about her dress?Allison: Hmm . . . I’m not sure that I would; actually, I think I probably wouldn’t. Maybe that makes me dishonest; I don’t know. Maybe I could answer in a roundabout way that avoids lying but also avoids the truth. It does seem like the cruelty of telling her the truth would somehow override the need for honesty.Carly: That’s exactly my point! I feel that telling Grady the truth about my fling would be cruel in the same way that you telling Aunt Gertrude what you really think about her dress would be cruel.Allison: I see your point. But it’s different when we’re talking about an aunt we hardly ever see versus your relationship with your husband. Marriages are built on a foundation of trust and faithfulness. Lying to Grady seems to go totally against what your relationship is all about in a way that lying to Aunt Gertrude doesn’t.Carly: Now I think I see your point. Though I’m still not sure if something is wrong if it makes me happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else.Allison: And I’m not sure if lying is always wrong, or if it depends on the circumstance. It still feels as if we can wrong someone even if it doesn’t cause them pain, especially when it goes against our commitments to a person.Carly: Well, at least this conversation has given me a lot to think about.Allison: Me too.Emily and JeffIt’s Comic-Con in San Diego. Emily and Jeff, aficionados of all things fantasy and sci-fi, are drinking a beer after a delightful day meeting the actors from the Star Wars movies.Emily: You know, as much as I love Star Wars, the Jedi mind trick has always bothered me.Jeff: Blasphemy! Explain yourself.
Going DeeperEmily: Well, the Jedi have this ability to use the Force to make weak-minded people do what they want.Jeff: Right.Emily: Obi-Wan Kenobi used it to convince a Stormtrooper that R2-D2 and C-3PO weren’t the droids he was looking for. Luke Skywalker used it to convince Jabba the Hutt’s man Bib Fortuna to let him speak with Jabba, but when he tried to use it to convince Jabba to release Han Solo and Chewbacca from captivity, it didn’t work. And Qui-Gon Jinn wasn’t able to con-vince Watto, that flying giant insect thing, to sell Anakin to him, but he was able to convince some guy to stop selling “death sticks,” which I guess were supposed to be space-cigarettes or something.Jeff: Yeah, the Jedi mind trick probably saved the galaxy from the evil Empire, got Han and Chewie rescued, and set that space-cigarette dealer on the right path. Is your problem the fact that it has limited effectiveness, since it doesn’t work on the strong-minded?Emily: No! You’re missing the point. There’s something that bothers me about the idea that someone can just go and manipulate another person, and that’s supposed to be okay.Jeff: But these are Jedi. They only use their powers for good.Emily: That shouldn’t matter. Just because the Stormtrooper, Bib Fortuna, and the cigarette dealer were mentally weaker than Jabba and Watto doesn’t mean it was okay for them to be manipulated.Jeff: That misses my point. It was good that the Jedi were able to use it on the weaker people, and it would have been even better if they had been able to use it on Jabba and Watto as well. I still don’t understand the problem here.Emily: My worry is, what if using that power is wrong in the first place? If it is, then the fact that they could use it against the weak-minded doesn’t make it okay; in fact, it makes it worse, since it means that those people were being exploited due to their weakness.Jeff: Whoa, wait a second. Are you saying the Jedi are evil?Emily: That’s a bit too strong. I know they had good intentions. What I question is whether the methods they used were right. Someone can have good intentions but use bad methods to achieve them. That doesn’t make them evil, but it also doesn’t make what they do right.Jeff: But think about what I said before. If Obi-Wan hadn’t used that trick to escape the Storm-trooper, the droids would have been captured, Obi-Wan and Luke would probably have been killed, and they would have never been able to defeat the Empire. If Luke hadn’t used it on Bib Fortuna, he might not have been able to rescue Han, Chewie, and Leia. It’s worth being able to influence people if the outcome is good enough.
Going DeeperEmily: But this isn’t influencing people. It’s more like brainwashing. When you’re trying to influence someone, they still have a choice. Brainwashing forces people, or aliens or whatever, to believe or act a certain way. It takes away their power of rational decision-making. It’s like the Imperious Curse from Harry Potter, but in Harry Potter it’s viewed on the same level as murder and torture.Jeff: I’m starting to see your point. But when someone is completely bent on doing bad things, why shouldn’t we use every available means to stop them? I highly doubt that Obi-Wan would have been able to just reason with the Stormtrooper to allow the droids through. Rational persuasion only gets you so far. Sometimes, when the stakes are high, you have to use more extreme methods.Emily: Ahh, but isn’t that exactly how the Dark Side thinks?Jeff: Excuse me??Emily: You say that sometimes we should “use every available means” to achieve something, even if that means using the Force to exercise power over people and take away their free-dom. The Dark Side is all about power and control. It thinks that only by using the Force and whatever else to manipulate and control people can order be achieved. See the connection?Jeff: Okay, I think I see what you’re saying. You are arguing that using power to manipulate and control people is wrong.Emily: Yes.Jeff: The Empire uses the superior forces of weapons and intimidation to control the galaxy, because they know that most people are too weak to withstand them.Emily: Right . . .Jeff: . . . and this is no different than the Jedi using the Force to manipulate people’s minds, especially when the targets are too weak to withstand them.Emily: I’m not saying it’s no different. But there are some disturbing similarities, yes.Jeff: . . . and so using superior means to subdue an inferior enemy is always wrong.Emily: Right. Wait, no. If that were the case, then it would be wrong for the U.S. to try to stop terrorist groups, or in fact for a parent to punish a child! I’m not trying to say that if one per-son thinks another person is doing something wrong they shouldn’t use superior means to try to stop that person. I’m just saying there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed. Brainwashing someone and completely taking away their freedom of choice seems like one of those lines.Jeff: I get it. That kind of power is scary, and there’s something disconcerting about brain-washing people for your own purposes. But I’m just not sure it’s never okay, especially when
Going Deeperthe stakes are so high. Like I said before, if Obi-Wan hadn’t used it to save those droids, the whole galaxy would have been at risk. You think that respecting the freedom of that one Storm trooper is more important than the freedom of everyone else in the galaxy?Emily: I just wonder how someone can stand up for the freedom of all while deliberately tak-ing away someone else’s freedom. But it is also strange to think that respecting the freedom of one enemy soldier is more important than saving the galaxy. But what about when Qui-Gon Jinn used the mind trick on the cigarette dealer? That was just one guy living a lifestyle Qui-Gon didn’t approve of.Jeff: So? It was for his own good.Emily: So if we think that someone isn’t living their life the right way it’s okay to manipulate them into changing, even if we don’t know the person?Jeff: Well when you put it that way, it does seem a bit authoritarian.Emily: Well, then, maybe we can at least agree that some uses of the Jedi mind trick weren’t right. It’s not right for powerful people to control people’s minds and choices in order to get them to do what the powerful people want.Jeff: But you agree that this principle isn’t necessarily watertight when the stakes are really high.Emily: Yes, but then the question is, when are the stakes high enough to justify bending this principle?Jeff: I don’t know; that’s a tough question. Maybe we should save that for another time.Steve and JuanTwo U.S. Army soldiers, Steve and Juan, are stationed in Afghanistan. They are having a con-versation over dinner one day.Steve: So did you hear about what happened to Dan Quinn?Juan: You mean that Green Beret who was disciplined for beating up that Afghan police com-mander? Yeah, but he had it coming.Steve: Who, Quinn?Juan: No, the Afghan police commander. I heard he was keeping a local boy as a sex slave.Steve: I know, but Quinn had orders to look the other way when he saw stuff like that. He disobeyed his orders.
Going DeeperJuan: I know we’re supposed to obey orders. Heck, if one of my guys disobeyed my orders he’d be scrubbing the latrines with his own toothbrush. But this is different. We’re talking about the sexual abuse of a child. You can’t just let that slide.Steve: But orders are orders. If the Army couldn’t depend on soldiers following orders, even if they disagreed with them, it would be chaos. There’s no time on the battlefield for question-ing – lives would be lost.Juan: But this isn’t the battlefield. This is stuff that’s happening on our bases and in the vil-lages we control. And we know it’s happening, but we just turn a blind eye. Quinn was just trying to do something about a situation that was utterly wrong, no matter how one tries to spin it.Steve: But as I understand it, Afghan culture doesn’t see things the same way we do. I heard that it’s normal for men in positions of power to take young boys and girls as sex slaves. It’s like a way of showing their dominance or something. People around here just accept it.Juan: I’m not sure how normal it is at all; maybe that’s a stereotype. And it definitely doesn’t seem like everyone accepts it: Apparently Quinn was getting a lot of complaints about this guy from local leaders. But I don’t care if it’s the local custom or not. It’s just wrong, flat out. We shouldn’t have to stand for this.Steve: But who are we to judge? What’s right or wrong for us isn’t the same for everyone else.Juan: Then what are we fighting for?Steve: We’re fighting to keep Americans safe. These people want to destroy us, so we’re defending ourselves.Juan: That’s true, but I thought we were also fighting for freedom and justice, that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and groups like them are enemies of humanity, and that we’re standing up for all people, not just Americans. That involves a lot of judging—we’re judging that the way they oppress people and force others to adhere to their religious and cultural practices is wrong.Steve: Fair enough. But where do we draw the line? Are we going to start demanding that they dress the way we do, eat the way we do?Juan: I admit I don’t know where we should draw the line. But if anything crosses that line, sexually abusing children does.Steve: I agree that we’re talking about something awful, and maybe it would be good to try to put a stop to this practice if we can someday. But even though these child abusers are horrible people doing awful things, we need them to defeat the enemy. And we can’t change their cus-toms overnight. So if we’re going to form alliances with the people of this area, we might have to put up with some of their ways, even though they go against what we’re used to.
Going DeeperJuan: Not just what we’re used to, but what we know to be right.Steve: Fine. What we know to be right. But sometimes we just have to tolerate it if we’re going to achieve peace and freedom.Juan: Now it’s my turn to ask where we draw the line. You’re saying that we have to put up with people doing things that are horribly wrong in order to defeat those who are . . . doing things that are horribly wrong? What makes what the Taliban does worse than what these pedophile police commanders do?Steve: I’ll have to think about that one. But I’m not sure it matters at the end of the day, because like I said before, an order is an order, and Quinn violated his orders.Juan: I suspect he felt that he had a duty to do what’s right that went beyond his duty to obey orders.Steve: Well, if that’s the case I suppose I can admire him, even if I don’t necessarily agree with him. I’d hate to see an army in which soldiers can just disobey orders whenever they disagree with them.Juan: And I’m not sure I want to see an army where a soldier gets in trouble for stopping a guy from using a child as a sex slave.Steve: Well, I guess no one said being in the Army would be easy.“Who Am I to Say?”: Neutral Versus UndecidedThink about any of the most hotly contested issues of the past few decades, such as racial justice, abortion, same-sex marriage, gender equality, animal rights, environmental responsi-bility, and so on. The difficulty and complexity of these issues may leave individuals unsure of their own position, and thus they might admit that they are undecided on the moral questions. They might recognize that there are compelling arguments on multiple sides of a debate, but they don’t yet feel confident about whether one position is stronger than others, all things considered. There is nothing wrong with being undecided; in fact, often it can be a sign of honesty, open-mindedness, and humility.Sometimes it can be tempting to take a position of neutrality instead. This would be an attempt to avoid taking a stand on the issues altogether. It’s not simply remaining undecided or with-holding judgment, because one can do so while maintaining that there are better and worse positions to be sought. Rather, in taking a position of neutrality on a moral issue, one assumes that one cannot or should not take a side. This attitude is often expressed by the phrase “Who am I to say?”However, on many issues it is not clear that one can genuinely hold a position of neutrality, for at least two reasons. One has to do with the way that arguments for and against certain
Going Deeperpositions are framed. Many are framed in such a way that certain practical demands follow from theoretical commitments. In other words, they claim that if I hold to certain beliefs, then it follows that people ought to act in certain ways, that certain laws are just or unjust, and so on. And if one denies these practical demands, then one must either be denying the theoreti-cal beliefs that support them or denying that these beliefs entail the practical demands.For example, some philosophers have argued that we have certain moral responsibilities toward other animals (Regan, 1985) or toward the needy (Singer, 1972) that most people find extremely demanding; yet according to their arguments, these responsibilities follow from basic commitments that nearly everyone shares, such as the commitment that one should never cause unnecessary harm or that one should prevent bad things from happening when one can do so without a comparatively significant sacrifice. Accordingly, if someone were to claim to be neutral on the question of whether eating meat is moral or whether we ought to give to the needy, regarding those as mere personal choices that no one else can judge, one would be implicitly rejecting the moral arguments of the philosophers who claim otherwise. In other words, one must either reject these basic commitments or reject the argument that these commitments mean that we must be vegetarians or that we must give away certain por-tions of our income. To be supposedly neutral is, in fact, to deny that we must do these things, which is not a stance of neutrality after all. Most (or perhaps all) moral arguments have a similar form whereby taking a position of supposed neutrality is, in fact, to reject the claim that we have certain obligations, and by rejecting this claim, the position is not neutral.A second reason why neutrality might be dubious has to do with the fact that our lives are always interconnected with others. We began this study by describing ethics as the endeavor to answer the question “How should one live?” If our lives are interconnected, then it is never enough to merely consider one’s own feelings, beliefs, or actions; one has to also consider how those affect one’s friendships, family, community, fellow citizens, the human race, other ani-mals, the environment, the Divine, and so on. A position of supposed neutrality may, in fact, neglect obligations that one has to others in this wide spectrum.Consider, for example, someone from the 1960s who took a position of neutrality or pas-sivity on the issue of segregation. In his “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. scolded such people, especially religious leaders in the Birmingham area who remained passive within “the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States” (King, 1963, para. 6). To be sure, many of them opposed segregation in principle and thus were not neutral in a theoretical sense, but they were advocating a much more restrained response that avoided conflict and social unrest. King’s letter (written from jail after he had been arrested for non-violent protest) powerfully describes the conditions that Blacks in that city and around the United States had to face on a daily basis. The inaction of the religious leaders in that commu-nity, he argued, was the equivalent of allowing these atrocities to continue.If someone were to have remarked, “Who am I to say whether Blacks should be given the same rights as Whites?,” we can imagine King responding similarly to how he responded to the religious leaders. By remaining neutral on such a significant question, a person would, in fact, be an “archdefender of the status quo” (King, 1963, para. 32). Given that, in his words, “we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny”
Going Deeper(King, 1963, para. 4), the decision to remain neutral on the matter is to have a role in allowing the system to persist and thus to be complicit in its evils.This does not mean that we must have an opinion or take a strong stand on every issue; indeed, that would likely mean that one has not given sufficient thought to many of them. But unlike a position of neutrality, implicit in a position of indecision is the willingness to continue pursuing the answers to difficult ethical questions.Read the full text of Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter here: https://www.africa.upenn.edu /Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
