Transcript Ηθική Φιλοσοφία – Εισαγωγή 1

ETHICS – AN INTRODUCTION
1



Ethics is one of the many branches/fields of philosophy. Ethics, or Moral Philosophy,
deals with a number of different questions. Let us see some of them:

What is it that makes an action (morally) right or wrong?

How should we live?

How should we treat other people?

Are the rules/laws of ethics objective and universal truths?
As noted, Ethics deals also with a number of other questions which are not mentioned
here.
I believe that there is an alternative (and better) way to define Ethics. I will explain how
we can do this in the lectures.
ETHICS – AN INTRODUCTION
2



There are three basic types of theories in ethics. There are some theories which are
characterized as “duty-based” or “deontological”. Then there are theories which are said to
be “consequentialist”. And finally, there are theories which are said to be “virtue-based”.
At this stage of the discussion, we can say a few things about each one of these three
types of theories. Duty-based theories claim that there are certain ethical rules/duties,
which are often taken to be absolute. And according to these theories, acting morally
amounts to doing your duty. Consequentialist theories claim that: an action is deemed to
be morally good or not depending on what its consequences are (likely to be). And finally,
virtue-based theories claim that: if one is to be a moral agent, then one needs to develop
their natural(ly occurring) virtues.
We will take a closer look at each one of the above within the next couple of weeks.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
1



We will now examine two deontological theories: (a) Christian Ethics and (b) Kantian
Ethics. They are considered to be the two most important deontological theories.
Christian Ethics takes it that if one is to act morally, then one ought to obey certain moral
rules/duties: the ones given to humanity by God himself.
Very briefly, Christian Ethics purports that:

The Christian God does exist.

God is the creator of the universe, as well as the author of all moral values/duties.

If one is to be a moral agent, then one ought to obey the rules given to us by God.
That is to say, we ought to act according to the rules authored by God. If one fails to
do so, then one will also fail to act in a morally acceptable way.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
2




Christian Ethics, the theory, faces a number of different problems. Let us consider some
of them.
Putatively, Christian Ethics dictates that: We ought to obey the moral rules/the laws
authored by God. Where are we supposed to find these rules? Supposedly, these are to
be found in (inter alia) the Bible. The problem here is that the Bible is open to a number
of different interpretations. If this is so, then how are we supposed to know what the
will of God is?
It seems that there is an answer to the above objection. There is no problem with the
scriptures themselves. The fault lies with our inability to properly understand the word of
God.
Another objection to Christian Ethics is this: If this theory is to be deemed to be credible,
then we ought to first of all prove that the Christian God does exist. As we have seen,
this is not an easy task. It seems, however, that the believer may have an answer to this
problem as well. We don’t need to prove that God exists. Faith, coupled with the validity
of the moral rules set out in the scriptures, should be sufficient – for accepting the
theory.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
3




The most serious of the objections raised against Christian Ethics is the notorious
“Euthyphro Dilemma”.
The source of this dilemma is the Platonic dialogue “The Euthyphro”. In the dialogue
itself, the dilemma has a very specific form. However, it may be adapted so that it can
be used against the moral theory under consideration.
Let us see the two horns of the dilemma: “Does God Command you to do Y, because Y
is morally good”; “Or, is it the case that Y is morally good just because God commands
it?”.
The dilemma is here stated in a way that, hopefully, will make it easier for you to
grasp(/and reproduce).
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
4



There are two questions we need to answer at this point: (1) “What is the precise
meaning of each one of the horns of the dilemma?”, and (2) “Why is the dilemma
considered to be a fatal problem for Christian Ethics?”.
If we do adopt the first horn of the dilemma, then it follows that morality/moral values
exist/s independently of God. That is to say, it follows that God is not the author/the
creator of moral values. This creates a serious problem for the theory of Christian
Ethics, as the theory takes it that God is the creator of moral values.
On the other hand, if we adopt the second horn of the dilemma, then it seems that we
are in line with the dictates of Christian Ethics. Remember that: the theory states that
God is the author/creator of moral values. However, the fact of the matter is that the
second horn of the dilemma generates even more serious problems for the theory. Let
us see some of these problems.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
5




If A (= Killing is morally unacceptable) is morally wrong just because God says so, then, as
just noted, it follows that God is the author of moral values. At the very same time,
however, it follows that morality is somewhat arbitrary: Α is morally wrong just because
God says so.
If this is so, then it follows that God could have decided that killing is morally acceptable -instead of that killing is morally wrong. Obviously, this is unacceptable -- for the christian.
Another problem with the second horn of the dilemma is this. If we do adopt it, then it
follows that “good = “whatever God says”. If this is so, then it follows that the Christian
dogma that God is benevolent becomes utter nonsense. It turns out that it states the
following: “God is (morally) good because God says so”.
Finally, consider the following: Is it really the case that an action is morally wrong/right just
because God says so? Consider an extreme example: child abuse. Is it really the case that
child abuse is morally wrong just because God states so? Wouldn’t this be morally
unacceptable even if God did not exist?
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
6





To make a long story short, a careful examination of the Euthyphro Dilemma reveals a
serious flaw in the very foundations of Christian Ethics.
Christian Ethics takes it that God is the creator/author of morality; he is the author/the
creator of moral values.
As we have seen, however, the Euthyphro Dilemma decisively shows that God cannot
be the author/the creator of morality.
And if this is so, then it follows that Christian Ethics is a highly problematic theory.
At this point, do note that: This is just one theory that attempts to connect morality to
Christianity. Christian theologians did realize that the theory we have just considered
faces insuperable problems. That’s why they replaced it with another theory which is
admittedly better, the “Natural Law Theory”.
KANTIAN ETHICS
1

This is the other “great” duty-based ethical theory. It is due to I. Kant – a famous
German philosopher (1724-1804) .

We can only examine some of the basic tenets of this theory.


Kant believed that in order to determine whether an action is morally good or not, then
we need to examine the motive behind it. He claimed that the only motive that can
render an action morally good is a sense of duty. In other words, he believed that: an
action Y is morally good if and only if Y is performed out of a sense of duty.
Let us consider a relevant example. If George decides to help Andreas, a beggar, and
he does so because he feels compassion for his fellow man, then his action is not
morally good. According to Kant, the action is at best morally indifferent. If, however,
he decides to help Andreas because he wants to follow a relevant rule of ethics, i.e. the
rule “it is your duty to help your fellow human beings”, then and only then his action
may be deemed to be a morally good one.
KANTIAN ETHICS
2



Kant adopted this rather bizarre approach to ethics for a number of reasons. Let us see
one of them.
The utilitarians claim that an action may be deemed to be morally good if and only if it
can bring about certain consequences. But, are we really in a position to “metaphysically
fix”/control the (future) consequences of any action? Apparently not. [To make the point
clearer, consider the case of the drowning child -- see p. 43 in your textbook.] If this is
so, then, Kant believes, consequences are in fact irrelevant to morality. We can only be
held morally responsible for things which we have some control over. We can’t have
control over the future consequences of an action.
The Christian holds that we should help a beggar because we feel compassion. But, can
we have (complete) control over our emotions? Apparently not. [Consider an extreme
example: a man who, due to some genetic defect, cannot feel compassion.] Therefore,
Kant states, emotions cannot form the basis of a sound moral theory either.
KANTIAN ETHICS
3

According to Kant, morality should be something that is available to all human beings.
Therefore, the only sound basis for a moral theory is the human will, and in particular our
sense of duty. To clarify this point, we will have to re-consider some of the examples just
mentioned. Very briefly, if the basis for morality is rule-following, then we will all have the
capacity to act morally – or at least this is what Kant believed

According to Kant, all (rational) human beings have certain moral duties which are
categorical. In other words, these duties are absolute and unconditional.

For Kant, morality is nothing more than a system of categorical imperatives.


Kant also believed that there is a distinction to be made between: (a) categorical
imperatives and (b) hypothetical imperatives. An example of a categorical imperative:
“Never lie”. An example of a hypothetical imperative: “If you want to get an “A”, then you
need to study”. See also the discussion in your textbook, p. 44.
It is also crucial to remember that according to Kant there is one basic/fundamental
categorical imperative. That is to say, he thought that there is one rule in ethics which is of
primary importance. We are going to call this rule The Categorical Imperative = “Act only
on maxims which you can at the same time will to be universal laws”.
KANTIAN ETHICS
4




As we have just seen, Kant takes it that an action may be deemed to be morally good if
and only if it is motivated by our decision to follow a certain rule that can be universally
accepted – see The Categorical Imperative.
In other words, the relevant rule should satisfy (at least) one requirement: it should be
such that it can be universally accepted/acceptable.
Putatively, at this point there arises a serious problem for Kantian Ethics. Let us
suppose that a person A wants the rule “It is morally right to kill innocent people” to
become universally accepted. Does Kant agree that this rule should in fact become
universally accepted?
Apparently not. Let us see how Kant rebuts this objection.
KANTIAN ETHICS
5



There are a number of different versions of The Categorical Imperative. And, Kant takes
it that they are (all) logically equivalent to each other.
Another version of The Categorical Imperative is this: “Treat other people as ends in
themselves, never as means to an end”.
In simple terms, the above may be put as follows: We should never use other people; we
should always treat them with respect.
KANTIAN ETHICS
6



The above (second) version of The Categorical Imperative, as well as its first version,
is essentially equivalent to the Golden Rule of Christianity: “Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you”.
If this is so, then Kant may readily rebut the objection mentioned earlier on. We
don’t have to admit rules like “It is morally right to kill innocent people” (in the
Kantian system of ethics) just because person A believes that this rule should become
universally accepted.
In Kantian Ethics the relevant rules should satisfy one important condition. They
should be such that they are in line with the second version of The Categorical
Imperative. That is to say, they should be such that they do not lead to one person
treating another with disrespect.
KANTIAN ETHICS – SUMMARY





For Kant what determines whether an action is morally good or not is the motive behind it.
An action X is morally good if and only if it is performed out of a sense of duty.
For Kant all the rules of ethics are categorical imperatives. In other words, they are rules
which are absolute; i.e. they have not exceptions whatsoever. In fact, in one of his books
he claims that: you ought to always tell the truth -- even to the murderer who is after an
innocent victim.
Kant claims that there is a distinction to be made between (a) categorical imperatives and
(b) hypothetical imperatives.
For Kant there is one rule in ethics which is fundamental. This is The Categorical
Imperative. Apparently, this rule has at least two versions.
Finally, Kant believes that the rules of ethics are not given to us by some divine authority.
He argues that these rules are dictates of reason. [This point will be analyzed in class.]
KANTIAN ETHICS – OBJECTIONS
1



Kantian Ethics faces a number of objections – some of them are quite serious.
Let us begin with a classic objection which is in fact innocuous. Many commentators
claim that Kant’s theory is empty (of content). It tells us that if one is to be a morally
good person, then one ought to follow certain duties. However, if you do search his
books you will see that he never gives us a list of these duties. This is not a real problem
for the theory. I will explain why this is so in the lectures.
Another objection to the theory is this: it leads to conflicts of rules. If the rules of ethics
are absolute, then there are going to be plenty of cases where these rules come into
conflict with each other. Consider, for instance, the following rules: (a) Never lie and (b)
Love an protect your family. One may easily come up with a scenario where these rules
come into conflict with each other.
KANTIAN ETHICS – OBJECTIONS
2

It also seems that this theory leads to implausible/absurd conclusions. Let us
see some of these implausible conclusions:



Kant states that the rule “Never lie” is absolute. If this is so, then we are morally
obligated to tell the truth to a psychotic killer – who is looking for his innocent victim.
Kant tells us that an action which is done out of compassion is morally indifferent.
But, is this really so? If I help another person because I feel compassion for him/her,
then is it really the case that my action is morally indifferent? Apparently not.
The fact of the matter is that the theory does not take into consideration the
consequences of an action. Kant takes it that all that matters in ethics is our sense of
duty. But, is it true that the consequences of an action have no moral importance?
Can you think of a case which shows that Kant is wrong concerning this point? [See
also your textbook, p. 47.]