Transcript Ethical Challenges

Ethics Lesson #3
Challenges to Ethics
Much of this presentation comes
from Questions that Matter, by
Miller (Chapter 16)
Two Ethical Approaches
• Intent Ethics
–What did the person taking the
action expect to happen? Did they
have ethical intent? If the outcome
turns out poorly, it doesn’t matter as
long as their intent was pure/ethical.
• Consequence Ethics
–Intent of person is irrelevant, only
the outcome matters. If the
outcome is ethical, then that is what
is important
Morality Bah!
• Logical positivism
– Morality is meaningless
• Ethical Relativism
– No absolute morality, it is
based in a culture or individual
• Determinism
– External factors control people’s lives,
they have no moral control themselves
Logical Positivism
Ethics and Morality are meaningless
• Verification Principle
– A position is only cognitively meaningful
if it is either analytic or empirically
verifiable
– Can science see Ethics? -NO! so it’s
fluff, not real
• Emotivism
- Moral principles are emotional
expressions; reflections of likes and
dislikes
Logical positivism
• Bottom Line:
– You can’t “test” morality with science,
so it is only a pseudo-concept; not
real
– If I say, “You killed that man.” That
is a fact. However if I think it is
wrong that you killed him, well, that’s
just my emotion in play; not any real
ethic or morality
– A proposition is meaningful only if it
is analytical or empirically verifiable
Problems for Logical Positivism
• Why do only empirical events have meaning?
– Because Logical Positivists say so? See the rub?
• Is this point of view practical?
– Law, legislation, moral disputes
• Famous Saying for Logical Positivists:
There is no justice;
there’s just us.
Ethical Relativism
• Also called Ethical Subjectivism
• Nothing is absolute, but is only
based on the point of view of the
individual or culture
• Morality, therefore, depends on
who you are and where you’re
from
Ethical Relativism
• There is a right and a wrong; It’s
just not universal to everyone
• Depends on the person or group
– It’s Subjective
• Most who embrace this approach
believe the culture defines
morality
Strength of Relativism
• There is one big argument in
support
– People are conditioned by their
circumstances. If you think X is wrong
and Y is right, it is very much dependent
on your upbringing, education, religion,
etc.
– If a person’s circumstances are
different, say born in a different
culture, they would likely have a morality
based on that culture
• Relativism explains this obvious
difference
Weakness with Relativism
• Why does this apply only to morality?
• Should we then suspend our judgment of
other culture’s actions? (child labor,
human welfare, slavery, genocide?)
• What about the inherent paradox? Two
rules in direct conflict: how can both be
right at the same time?
• How can there be morality with no
independent rules then?
*It is important to distinguish between our
opinions of morality and morality itself
Where does this leave us?
• It seems that you must either
accept or reject relativism
• If you reject it, the remaining
option is something called ethical
absolutism
• Definition: Moral values are
independent of individual opinions;
they are fixed and common to all
Determinism
• There is no free will
– Moral “choices” are impossible
• Morality may still exist
– Actions may be right or wrong,
but people have no control over
actions
• There are different types of
Determinism
– Hard
– Soft
Morality Bah!
• Logical positivism
– Morality is meaningless
• Ethical Relativism
– No absolute morality, it is
based in a culture or individual
• Determinism
– External factors control people’s
lives, they have no moral control
themselves