Normative ethics Essay

Meta value orientations talks more than or less the nature of moral principles and deterrent example abstract thought. Discussions ab come on whether ethics is relative and whether we al directions act from self-interest ar examples of meta- ethical discussions. In fact, drawing the conceptual particularization amongst Metaethics, Normative honourableistic philosophical system, and Applied ethics is itself a metaethical analysis. Normative ethics is interested in determining the subject scope of our moral behavior. Normative ethical theories strain to provide action-guides procedures for answering the realistic Question (What ought I to do? ).The moral theories of Kant and Bentham ar examples of normative theories that operatek to provide guidelines for determining a specific course of moral action. gauge of the Categorical Imperative in the case of the former and the Principle of benefit in the case of the latter. Applied ethical codes attempts to deal wit h specific realms of humanity action and to craft criteria for discussing issues that superpower arise in spite of appearance those realms. The contemporary field of Applied Ethics arouse in the late 1960s and primeval 1970s. Today, it is a thriving part of the field of ethics.Numerous books and web-sites be inclined to topics much(prenominal) as Business Ethics, Computer Ethics, and Engineering Ethics. honorable Relativism Distinctions inwardly Relativism There is a distinction surrounded by morals and mores. The latter trustworthyly deal be defined as guiltless customs (e. g. , tea at 4) the former as treatment of others (e. g. , the practice of Apartheid). In discussing Relativism, we are relate only with moral practices. The Problem of Relativism What nonpareil nine considers Right, a nonher(prenominal) Society considers Wrong.Therefore, RIGHT AND WRONG are RELATIVE to a cross SOCIETY. Here we need to be aware of two things (1) Conf development harmless conve ntions (The British drive on the left side of the road) with harmful practices (Clitorectomy is habitual among the Somali). (2) Even if moralities may differ from rescript to society, it need non travel along that Morality Itself is relative for in that respect is a further distinction between CULTURAL (descriptive) RELATIVISM and NORMATIVE (Ethical) RELATIVISM.Cultural (descriptive) Relativism The descriptive relativist simply notes certain sociological FACTS (a) F tangible take a craps x is considered pay(a) in Society y at time t and x is considered treat in Society z at time t. (b) Empirical remnant Moralities are relative acknowledge that the claims of Cultural Relativism are either true or false. Normative (ethical) Relativism The normative relativist goes BEYOND any sociological facts.(a) Normative Claim What is considered right in Society x at time t IS right for that Society. (b) Theoretical (metaethical) Claim Morality Itself is Relative. Note that ethical relativism does not logi ph superstar c exclusivelyy follow from any truths uncovered by descriptive relativism. Note similarly that the ethical relativist has a hard time explaining how radical moral change good deal pop off within a certain society (as with slaveholding or womens suffrage in the United States). Ethical Egoism Psychological and Ethical Egoism.As a metaethical scheme of motivation, cordial egoism asserts the descriptive claim that all of our actions can be trim down to self-interest Whenever people do aroundthing, it is only because they think close tothing preferred for themselves result result from it. The claim is descriptive and so open to counterexamples, and it is broad, stating a reductionistic dissertation regarding all of our actions. (Contrast psychological egoism with the psychological state of sympathy, where the weal and hurt of the other fetchs the motive for our action.)Ethical egoism is a normative surmisal that states that our action s ought to be done from the perspective of self-interest. One of the problems with this position is that it might not be in ones self-interest to pass on eveyone act from the perspective of self-interest. This state of nature would not be desirable (in Hobbes terms, livelihood would be beastly, brutal, and short) and so it might netly be in ones self-interest to enter into a beat with others that would place restraints upon self-interested actions.Utilitarian Theories Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the venue of right and untimely solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/ insurance policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of ones own interests and takes into account the interests of others. Benthams Utility Principle (1)Recognizes the fundamental agency of pain and pleasure in human purport, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and whence measure).In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its minginess (or FARNESS). He also acknowledges its fecundity ( volition more of the same follow? ) and its virtuousness (its pleasure wont be followed by pain & wickedness versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. illusion Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Benthams philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, just now the quality of contentment that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between high and lower pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to the Greatest Happiness Principle it seeks to promote t he ability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its extent). Act and formular Utilitarianism.We can apply the doctrine of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The former is called act-utilitarianism and the latter is called rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism The principle of utility is applied immediately to each alternative act in a feature of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the dress hat results (or the least(prenominal) amount of bad results). * Criticisms of this scenery point to the difficulty of attaining a full knowledge and certainly of the consequences of our actions.* It is possible to justify immoral acts using AU Suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy soliders, thus revealing the hide outs of the fathers. Rule-utilitarianism The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral prin ciples). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a gentleman in which people broke promises at will and a cosmea in which promises were binding. Right and wrong(p) are then defined as following or breaking those rules.* Some criticisms of this position point out that if the Rules take into account more and more exceptions, RU collapses into AU. * More genearl criticisms of this view argue that it is possible to generate unjust rules harmonize to the principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might be right if it led to an overall doing of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals. Deontological Theories playacting from Duty Deontological normative ethical theories place the locus of right and wrong in autonomous adherence to moral laws or duties.Monistic deontology Kants Categorical Imperative (Act only on that maxim whereby molarity canst at the same time will that it should become a public law) provide s the source of right action. Its first formulation states Act as if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a usual law of nature its second formulation states Always act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, as an end in itself, never as a means only. Actions that adapt to these imperatives (i. e., right actions) and are, furthermore, done from a sense of duty, are the epitome of morally praiseworthy actions. Critics of Kants approach claim that his Categorical Imperative does not contain within it a way to resolve divergences of duties. Lying is wrong can be interpreted as Never lie and thus Universal Principles can harden into Absolute Principles. Pluralistic deontology For the 20th cytosine philosopher W. D. Ross, there are a number of duties that reflection reveals and these form a group of prima facie obligations.The phrase prima facie (all things organism equal) refers to the fact that these duties do not bind us ab solutely, but sooner that they generally hold absent any further considerations. Two tell duties are nonmaleficence (dont harm others) and beneficence (help others). Other prima facie duties include dont lie, dont kill, keep promises, etc. When conflicts occur between duties, our actual duty becomes that which intuitive judgment discerns as the right thing to do (e. g. , lying to save the life of an innocent person).Critics are cautious about referring to intuition as the criterion for determining our actual course of action. Stephen Toulmin suggested that we weigh up, as salubrious as we can, the risks consumed in ignoring either, and choose the lesser of two evils. Thus, while the principles may be deontic in nature, a resolution of conflicts of principles could appeal to probable consequences. sex activityual abstention Ethics diachronic Perspective There is a long tradition in ethics that places great importance on the kind of person one is. We not only want those around us to tell the truth (for example, according to the Categorical Imperative), but also to be honest. Both Aristotle (arete) and Aquinas (virtu) express this aspect of ethics by highlighting the purpose of what we would today call region in their discussions of ethics (and the classic justnesss of courage, justice, and moderation). David Hume also gave virtue and person-to-person merit a key role in his ethical theory. The novel revival of interest in virtue ethics can be traced back to Philippa Foot.She writes that a persons virtue may be judged by his innermost lusts as well as by his intentions and this fits with our composition that a virtue such as generosity lies as a good deal in psyches attitudes as in his actions . The Moral judgment of Virtue We should distinguish the virtues found in a particular society or culture (e. g. , chastity) from those virtues that can be supported by moral reasoning (e. g. , honesty). A virtue is a trait of character that is complaisa ntly precious, and a moral virtue is a trait that is morally valuedMoral reasons must support a claimof moral virtue .By emphasizing the prior(prenominal)ity of character in discussions of ethics, virtue theorists can say kind of than using rules and government regulations to nurse subjects in research, some claim that the most reliable protection is the presence of an informed, conscientious, compassionate, responsible police detective. The underlying view here is that character is more important than conformism to rules and that virtues should be inculcated and cultivated over time through educational interactions, role models, etc.A practical consequence of this view is that the education of, for example medical doctors, should include the cultivation of virtues such as compassion, discernment, trustworthiness, integrity, conscientiousness as well as benevolence (desire to help) and nonmalevolence (desire to avoid harm). Critical Evaluation of Virtue Ethics Often times we en counter morality between strangers (as when one enters an Emergency Room after a car accident). At these times, its not the persons character, but his/her need to follow rules and procedures that calculate to come to the forefront (Virtue is not enough).Furthermore, persons of good character can certainly formulate bad policy or imbibe a poor choice and we need to evaluate those policies and choices according to moral principles. Constructive Evaluation of Virtue Ethics Yet ethical theory is more complete if the virtues are includedmotives deserve to be at center stage in a way that some starring(p) traditional theories have inadequately appreciated To look at acts without also looking at the moral appropriateness and desirability of feelings, attitudes, forms of sympathy, and the like is to throw off a large area of the moral picture (B&C, 4th Ed., 69) vainglorious Rights and Communitarian Theories Today we often find moral problems framed by perspectives derived from semi g overnmental philosophy. Issues like euthanasia, stem cell research and spontaneous abortion as well as distributive justice concerns such as social protection and medi interest, are likely to be seen along the liberal/conservative watershed. traditional moral theories need to take these frameworks into consideration. Will Kymlickas Introduction to policy-making Philosophy provides analyses of the philosophical ideas behind the ideological debates that now envelop umteen topics in moral philosophy.Of particular value is his discussion of liberal equality, libertarianism, and communitarianism. bad equality is often associated with the work on John Rawls in his theory of Justice. It argues that we should rationally affirm two fundamental principles of justice designed to protect our political liberties and social opportunities. It can be directly contrasted with the libertarian ideas found in Robert Nozicks Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick challenges Rawlss approach to social inequalities and argues for a minimalist state. except both authors (and their followers) conceive of individuals as Socratic in nature, capable of reasoning about their life plan and questioning, in principle, the world around them. In this sense, they are both liberals in the tradition of John Stuart Mills essay, On Liberty. For liberals, the question about the good life requires us to exact a judgment about what sort of a person we neediness to be. Thus liberals will emphasize the role of choice and license from government interruptnce in private matters.For communitarians, on the other hand, individuals are not atomistic, unencumbered selves individuals are situated within a community, engraft in the received wisdom of our human culture. Communal determine are authoritative horizons wherein we take our orientation toward life . The self is not prior to, but rather constituted by, its ends we cannot distinguish me from my ends and our selves are at least partly constitut ed by ends that we do not choose, but rather discover by virtue of our being embedded in some shared social context .Since self-determination does not occur in a vacuum, the government needs to support a social surround that is conducive to the development of what is best in all of us. For those communitarians who are social conservatives, this will often take the form of a promotion family values that can, for example, discourage changes in the institution of marriage. Broadly speaking, these two positions account for the divide between liberals and social conservatives in dealing with matters such as abortion and euthanasia. In these situations, liberals tend to become pro-choice and social conservatives tend to become pro-life. ***** As is to be expected in a modern, pluralistic democracy, umpteen of these issues are intercommunicate in the political realm and through the political process (including the courts). But the kinds of cases that arise within these areas should also be addressed within the framework of applied ethics as a way to get clearer about the nature of the problem and its potential for resolution. Indeed, we often see analyses found in applied ethics, such as the concept of a person in the morally significant sense or the distinction between killing and allowing to strangle, embedded in the political debate itself.Ethics of Care In the 1970s and 80s feminist writers began to question the assumptions behind many another(prenominal) of the traditional ethical theories. Carol Gilligans work in moral psychology challenged justice-based approaches to moral discussion men tend to embrace an ethic of rights using quasi-legal terminology and dispassionate principles women tend to affirm an ethic of assistance that centers on responsiveness in an interconnected network of needs, look at, and pr til nowtion of harm. winning care of others is the core notion. Annette Baiers philosophical account of an ethics of care does not recommend that we discard categories of obligation, but that we make room for an ethic of love and trust, including an account of human bonding and friendship. In both of these accounts, there is a specific criticism of Traditional Liberal Theory and its ferocity on impartiality and universality The impartiality and the standpoint of detached integrity advocated by liberal theories of justice, overlook, for example, the moral role of attachment to those close to us. speaking from the perspective of medical ethics, The care perspective is especially meaningful for roles such as parent, friend, physician, and nurse, in which contextual response, attentiveness to subtle clues, and the deepening of special relationships are likely to be more momentous morally than impartial treatment In articulating the challenge to universal principles, Beauchamp and Childress write We can let out rough inductances about how caring physicians and nurses respond to unhurrieds, for example, but these generalizat ions will not be subtle enough to give helpful guidance for the contiguous patient.Each situation calls for a set of responses outside any generalization. Proponents of an Ethics of Care emphasize the roles of Mutual Interdependence and Emotional solvent that play an important part in our moral lives many human relationships involve persons who are vulnerable, dependent, ill, and frail and the desirable moral response is habituated attentiveness to needs, not detached respect for rights (B&C, 373) and The person who acts from rule-governed obligations without appropriately aligned feelings such as worry when a friend suffers attends to have a moral deficiency.In additioninsight into the needs of others and tactful alertness to their circumstances often come from the emotions more than reason. Thus the emotions seem to have a cognitive role, allowing us to grasp a situation that may not be immediately available to one argumentation solely from a justice perspective. Critic al Evaluation of the Care Ethic The example of a nurse who personally wants to help a patient die, but who will not do so as it violates headmaster duty, shows that the ethics of care must confront situations in which bona fide requirements of impartiality conflict with acting partially from care. Some feminists actually interpret the care ethic as culturally determined by the male hierarchy. For example, a terminally ill grand mother may request to be allowed to die because she doesnt want to be a bother to her family. Here someone like Susan Sherwin sees a need to examine the social context of care as well as to establish readys to the ethics of care. Both enterprises would involve appeals to justice Constructive Evaluation of the Care EthicSensitivity and aroused response to particular situations (like family discussions with physicians) provide important guides to morally acceptable actions. A care ethic also seems to favor adopting procedures from Conflict Resolution and de viation Mediation as alternative ways to approach an apparent ethical conflict. Hedonism The term hedonism, from the Greek word (hedone) for pleasure, refers to several related theories about what is good for us, how we should behave, and what motivates us to behave in the way that we do.All hedonistic theories call pleasure and pain as the only important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to describe. If hedonistic theories identified pleasure and pain as yet two important elements, instead of the only important elements of what they are describing, then they would call it Hedonism uld not be nearly as unpopular as they all are. However, the claim that pleasure and pain are the only things of ultimate importance is what makes hedonism distinctive and philosophically interesting.Philosophical hedonists tend to focus on hedonistic theories of value, and especially of well-being (the good life for the one life sentence it). As a theory of value, hedonism states that a ll and only pleasure is per se valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically not valuable. Hedonists commonly define pleasure and pain broadly, such that both physical and mental phenomena are included. Thus, a gentle massage and recalling a fond retentivity are both considered to cause pleasure and stubbing a toe and perceive about the death of a loved one are both considered to cause pain.With pleasure and pain so defined, hedonism as a theory about what is valuable for us is intuitively appealing. Indeed, its appeal is evidenced by the fact that nearly all historical and contemporary treatments of well-being assign at least some space for discussion of hedonism. Unfortunately for hedonism, the discussions seldom endorse it and some even deplore its focus on pleasure. This hold begins by clarifying the different types of hedonistic theories and the labels they are often given.Then, hedonisms ancient origins and its subsequent development are reviewed. The majority of this article is concerned with describing the important theoretical divisions within Prudential Hedonism and discussing the major criticisms of these approaches. The Origins of Hedonism . a. Aristippus and the Cyrenaics The Cyrenaics, founded by Artistippus were also sceptics and Hedonistic Egoists. Although the paucity of original texts makes it difficult to confidently state all of the justifications for the Cyrenaics positions, their overall stance is clear enough.The Cyrenaics believed pleasure was the ultimate good and everyone should give chase all immediate pleasures for themselves. They considered bodily pleasures better than mental pleasures, presumably because they were more vivid or trustworthy. The Cyrenaics also recommended pursuing immediate pleasures and avoiding immediate line with scant or no regard for hereafter consequences. Their reasoning for this is even less clear, but is most plausibly linked to their sceptical views by chance that what we can be most sure of in this uncertain cosmea is our current bodily pleasures. b.Epicurus Epicurus founder of Epicureanism, developed a Normative Hedonism in stark contrast to that of Aristippus. The Epicureanism of Epicurus is also quite the opposite to the common role of Epicureanism while we might like to go on a exuberant Epicurean holiday packed with fine dining and moderately exuberant wining, Epicurus would warn us that we are only setting ourselves up for future pain. For Epicurus, happiness was the complete absence of bodily and especially mental pains, including business organisation of the Gods and desires for anything other than the bare necessities of life.Even with only the limited excesses of ancient Greece on offer, Epicurus advised his followers to avoid towns, and especially marketplaces, in order to limit the resulting desires for unnecessary things. Once we experience unnecessary pleasures, such as those from sex and rich food, we will then suffer from painful and hard to forg ather desires for more and better of the same. No matter how wealthy we might be, Epicurus would argue, our desires will eventually outstrip our means and interfere with our ability to live tranquil, blessed lives.Epicureanism is generally egoistic, in that it encourages everyone to pursue happiness for themselves. However, Epicureans would be unlikely to extract any of the selfish acts we might expect from other egoists because Epicureans train themselves to desire only the very basics, which gives them very little reason to do anything to interfere with the affairs of others. c. The Oyster Example With the exception of a brief halt discussed below, Hedonism has been generally unpopular ever since its ancient beginnings.Although criticisms of the ancient forms of hedonism were many and varied, one in particular was heavily cited. In Philebus, Platos Socrates and one of his many foils, Protarchus in this instance, are discussing the role of pleasure in the good life. Socrates ask s Protarchus to view a life without much pleasure but full of the higher cognitive processes, such as knowledge, forethought and consciousness and to compare it with a life that is the opposite.Socrates describes this opposite life as having perfect pleasure but the mental life of an oyster, pointing out that the subject of such a life would not be able to appreciate any of the pleasure within it. The harrowing thought of living the pleasurable but unthinking life of an oyster causes Protarchus to abandon his hedonistic argument. The oyster example is now substantially avoided by clarifying that pleasure is best understood as being a conscious experience, so any sensation that we are not consciously aware of cannot be pleasure.