It has been a while since the first part of my discussion of "The basics of philosophy" by Nigel Warburton, In writing this the second instalment, looking at right and wrong, I've decided to split the subject into 3 parts.
1) Theoretical models of morality
2) Meta Ethics
3) Application
Otherwise you would need about 6 hours to read a massive amount of text in one single blog entry that probably wouldn't do the subject justice and would very likely leave you with square eyes and a scrambled brain!
Regular readers will have noted a pervasive thread of ethical discourse in my recent blogs, and obviously that's because all my thoughts about the application of these concepts inevitably seep into other writings when trying to make any given point. Also just in case you were wondering, the terms "Ethical" and "Moral" are often used interchangeably. Ethics is the study of that which makes things right or wrong, and is also occasionally called "Moral philosophy".
So, to recap and clarify some the ethical models that I have referenced in recent Articles
Duty based theories:
i Christian -judaeo tradition ethics
Religious views of morality are by design dependent on the teachings of the religion in question. Most - though not all - religions suggest an all powerful creator being. That being's will is said to be supremely good, therefore by extension anything deemed as "good" by that being must be morally and ethically sound.
This argument has two defining elements:
Firstly, It presupposes the existence of the supreme being which as you'll have seen in my first article in this series is itself open to philosophical question and scrutiny.
Secondly this approach is suggestive that actions are either "good" or "bad" irrespective of the consequences of those actions.
Religious deity based morality also invites the question, "Is what a deity defines as good actually good because they say it to be so, or do they say it is so, merely because a given action is already good?"
Dependent on ones point of view on this last question, It can lead to a some very odd actions being deemed to be "moral" or conversely it reduces the "all powerful deity" to a being subject to a higher power, that of predetermined and separate laws of ethical and unethical action.
ii Kantian ethics
Emmanuel Kant took a view that it was ones duty to act in a moral way. He posed the question "what is a moral action?" As a result he devised things called Maxims, which he defined as the "thought behind the action" what we today might call a motivation. Crucially Kant devolved this process from any emotional input. It is a purely rational thought mechanism.
This is useful since it can distinguish between identical actions that have very different maxim's and thus may be on opposite sides of the moral argument.
Consider a scenario where you discover an injured person by the side of the road. You may decide to help them, and the outcome would therefore be beneficial to the person.
However this result can be achieved via two Maxim's:
"Help those in need", or "Help those in need and you shall be rewarded"
Arguably the second one is a less moral version of the first, since it predisposes personal gain from what is, at least outwardly, an apparently self-less act. Thus the action is not entirely driven by a sense of duty.
Kant sets out his version of categorical imperatives, or rules if you will, that suggest a framework on which to hang judgment of our actions in the moral sense, chief amongst them being:
"Treat other people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end"
Which roughly fits with a more commonly heard christian tradition ethic in todays language of:
"Do unto others as you have them do to you"
The main criticism of Kant's theory is that it can of course be demonstrated to be used with very immoral maxims, and in some ways doesn't really tell us what we should do, just how to judge what we might. There are also moral dilemma's where some immoral acts based on breaking a maxim might lead to a moral outcome. For example, not telling a gunman where his target is, if you actually do know that information. This goes against "You should always tell the truth" but may in effect save someones life. "The lesser of two evils..." so to speak.
Consequentialist theory
This problem with Kant's view of morality brings us nicely onto the next ethical model. That of consequence. Consequentialism, as the name implies, looks at the outcomes of actions to determine the nature of whether that action is moral or not. The best known of these is utilitarianism. The underpinning principle of good moral action in this case is defined as "that which brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people"
It is a system that very broadly encompasses much of the legal systems of the western world. Since rule based utilitarianism could be said to be a version of "law" by which people live their lives.
However. As has been discussed in much of my recent writings, pure application of this method does lead to under representation of the minority groups of society, Since by virtue of their being in the minority they will always be disadvantaged in terms of that defining principle. Plus, there is the ever present question of where does one draw the line's when considering actions that are good for one group but evidently bad or questionable for another.
One way to address this is to apply Negative utilitarianism. Basing ones actions on the outcome that produces the least amount of suffering rather than the greatest amount of a universal good, (happiness)
Both of these have limitations, and still bring up situational moral dilemmas. Also there are problems of weighing one action against another and the possible justification of immoral actions based on the idea of the greater good. (For example, how many times has that argument been used as a reason for going to war?)
Virtue based theory.
Rising from a study of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, Virtue theorists considered the question,
"How should one live their life?
The answer was to cultivate the virtues, and thus "flourish", leading a successful and prosperous life. This you might think is very similar to the Kantian ethics version of a Maxim, which it is, but with one critical difference. Virtue theorists included the emotional aspect of human intention.
Bringing emotion into a central role allowed discussion of things like compassion, generosity, and charity. It raised the issue of why we might act to benefit our fellow humans from one of mere duty to one of empathy, and being able to appreciate the consequences of their situation through a form of kin ship with them.
It encourages one to look for the similarities between different peoples, actions, viewpoints etc, and base ones actions from those observations.
The criticism of virtue based theory is simply, "what is to be classed as a virtue?" There is still much discussion around what to include in a list of virtues, since "That which allows one to flourish" is open to interpretation.
Additionally people change, their inherent tendencies altering over time with experience. Thus one might start off with the virtue of generosity, but having been conned in the past by an immoral individual, reassess that view in later life. There is also the consideration of "Human Nature" and arguments as to what that is, or if it exists.
These are three of the major ethical theories that exist. There are others, and this page here gives a very brief breakdown of each, including those discussed here.
One slightly confusing thing however, that some of you might have noticed, is that in all of the above there still isn't a clear definitional of what is "right" or "wrong" in the moral context.
To answer that it is necessary to study and theorise on the ethical theories. A field known a "Meta Ethics"
And that we will leave till part 2.
Sarah
No comments:
Post a Comment