MODULE ONE – MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEM

A. MORALITY AND ETHICS

Introduction: Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is the discipline concerned with
what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also
applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles

How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue Links to

an external site., or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will
it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions
that face us: is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in
opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? Is going to war
justified in cases where it is likely that innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong
to clone a human being or to destroy human embryos in medical research? What
are our obligations, if any, to the generations of humans who will come after us
and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the planet?

Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the
fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include
the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be
judged right or wrong.

The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now common to refer to
ethical judgments or to ethical principles where it once would have been more
accurate to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are
an extension of the meaning of ethics. In earlier usage, the term referred not to
morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as
its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy.

Generally speaking, Ethics is about matters such as the good thing that we should
pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could
or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are
encouraged to meet.
At its simplest, Ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people
make decisions and lead their lives. It is concerned with what is good for
individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. Ethics is derived
from the Greek word ethos which mean custom, habit, character or disposition.

Ethics covers the following dilemmas:

 how to live a good life
 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 moral decisions - what is good and bad?

ETHICS AND MORALITY

What is Ethics? Derived from the Greek word “ethos”, which means “way of
living”, ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct,
more specifically the behavior of individuals in society. Ethics examines the
rational justification for our moral judgments; it studies what is morally right or
wrong, just or unjust.

Ethics is the study of the standards of right and wrong that inform us as to how
we ought to behave. These standards relate to unwritten rules that are necessary
for humans to live among each other, such as “don’t hurt others.” We function
better as a society when we treat each other well.

Ethics are the set of moral principles that guide a person’s behavior. These morals
are shaped by social norms, cultural practices, and religious influences. Ethics
reflect beliefs about what is right, what is wrong, what is just, what is unjust, what
is good, and what is bad in terms of human behavior. Therefore, Ethics asks us
how we should live, what choices we should make and what makes our lives
worth living. It helps us define the conditions of a good choice and then figure out
which of all the options available to us is the best one.

While ethical beliefs are held by individuals, they can also be reflected in the
values, practices, and policies that shape the choices made by decision makers on
behalf of their organizations. The phrases business ethics and corporate ethics are
often used to describe the application of ethical values to business activities.
Ethics applies to all aspects of conduct and is relevant to the actions of
individuals, groups, and organizations.
KINDS OF ETHICS
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. In simple words, it analyses how
people ought to act, in terms of morality. It is also concerned with the criteria of
what is morally right and wrong. Moreover, the core concept of normative ethics
is how to arrive at basic moral standards and how to justify basic moral standards.
Teleological and deontological theories are the tools that help to determine this
concept. In teleological ethics, the goodness or badness of action is determined
by examining the consequences of that action, whereas, in deontological theories,
the goodness or badness of action is determined by examining the action itself.

Descriptive Ethics or comparative ethics is the study of people’s views about

moral beliefs. In other words, it analyses ‘what do people think is right? ’ Thus,
the study of descriptive ethics involves describing people’s moral values and
standards as well as their behavior.

While normative ethics analyses how people ought to act, descriptive ethics
analyses people’s moral values, standards and behavior.

BRANCHES OF ETHICS
Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they
mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions
of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the
issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments,
and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Metaethics talks about the nature
of ethics and moral reasoning.

Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral

standards that regulate right and wrong conduct through articulating the good
habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the
consequences of our Normative ethics is interested in determining the content of
our moral behavior. It seeks to provide action-guides; procedures for answering
the practical question ("What ought I to do?").

Applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion,

infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital
punishment, or nuclear war. Applied Ethics attempts to deal with specific realms
of human action and to craft criteria for discussing issues that might arise within
those realms.

WHAT IS MORALITY?
Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in
groups. It’s what societies determine to be “right” and “acceptable.” Sometimes,
acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term
interests to benefit society. Individuals who go against these standards may be
considered immoral. Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to
standards of right or wrong behavior.

The word carries the concepts of:

 moral standards, with regard to behavior;
 moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and
 moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action.

Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories. We often hear words
about religious morality or the phrase Christian morality in society. Items that fall
into the morally sound category are qualities like good, goodness, rightness,
virtue, and righteousness.

When talking about a moral quality involving a course of action, we think of

ethics. To define morality, a person will use the rules or habits with regard to right
and wrong that he or she follows. It is a complex system of general principles and
particular judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and
beliefs. Cultures and or groups regulate and generalize these concepts, thus
regulating behavior.

TYPES OF MORALITY
1. Conventional Morality. If you are taking up Sociology or an Anthropology
courses, and you asked on the morality of the cultures, you’ll probably focus on
the patterns of behavior found in the cultures, their accepted ideas about right
and wrong, and the sorts of character traits that these cultures find admirable.
These are the elements of what we can call conventional morality —the system of
widely accepted rules and principles, created by and for human beings, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the
actions and the motivations of others.

Conventional morality is the system of widely accepted rules and principles,

created by and for human beings, that members of a culture or society use to
govern their own lives and to assess the actions and the motivations of others.

Conventional morality can differ from society to society. Saudi Arabia forbids
women from publicly contradicting their husbands or brothers, while Denmark’s
morality allows this. Americans would think it immoral to leave a restaurant
without tipping a waiter or bartender, while such behavior in many other
societies is perfectly okay.

2. Critical Morality. When we talk about morality in this course, we will be

referring to moral standards that are not rooted in widespread endorsement, but
rather are independent of conventional morality and can be used to critically
evaluate its merits.

It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is all there is. But this would be
a very surprising discovery. Most of us assume, as I will do, that the popularity of
a moral view is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be wrong on this point, but
until we have a chance to consider the matter in detail, I think it best to assume
that conventional morality can sometimes be mistaken. If so, then there may be
some independent, critical morality that

 does not have its origin in social agreements;

 is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular prejudices; and
 can serve as the true standard for determining when conventional morality
has got it right and when it has fallen into error.

That is the morality whose nature we are going to explore in this course.
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORALITY AND ETHICS

MORALITY ETHICS
The term morals is derived from a On the other hand, ethics is originated
Greek word ‘mos’ which refers to from Greek word ‘ethikos’ which
custom and the customs determined refers to character and character is an
by group of individuals or authority. attribute.
Morals are the beliefs of the individual Ethics are the guiding principles which
or group as to what is right or wrong. help the individual or group to decide
what is good or bad
Morals may differ from society to Ethics are generally uniform
society and culture to culture.
Morals are expressed in the form of Ethics are abstract
general rules
Morals are dictated by society, culture Ethics are chosen by the person
or religion himself which governs his life.
Morals are concerned with principles On the contrary, ethics stresses on
of right and wrong. right and wrong conduct.
Morals do not have any applicability to Ethics is widely applicable in the
business. business known as business ethics.
.
MORAL STARTING POINTS
One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to begin. Some skeptics
about morality deny that there are any proper starting points for ethical
reflection.
They believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases and
gut feelings.

This outlook encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse, supports an

attitude that no moral views are any better than others. While this sort of
skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as the default view of ethics. We
should accept it only as a last resort.

In the meantime, let’s consider some other fairly plausible ethical assumptions,
claims that can get us started in our moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to
soften you up to the idea that we are not just spinning our wheels when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about
how to live. Here are some of them:
 Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism. The law does
not have the final word on what is right and wrong. Neither does tradition.
Actions that are legal, or customary, are sometimes morally mistaken.

 Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some mistaken ethical views, and
no human being is wholly wise when it comes to moral matters.

 Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good thing. Friendships add value

to your life. You are better off when there are people you care deeply
about, and who care deeply about you.

 We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can demand only so

much of us. Moral standards that are impossible to meet are illegitimate.
Morality must respect our limitations.

 Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. Moral responsibility

assumes an ability on our part to understand options, to make decisions in
an informed way, and to let our decisions guide our behavior. The fewer of
these abilities you have, the less blameworthy you are for any harm you
might cause.
 Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory that treats justice
as irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is important that we get what we deserve,
and that we are treated fairly.

 Deliberately hurting other people requires justification. The default position

in ethics is this: do no harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable to harm
others, but there must be an excellent reason for doing so or else the
harmful behavior is unjustified.

 Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are alike in all relevant
respects should get similar treatment. When this fails to happen—when
racist or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then something has gone
wrong.
  Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration. How well-off we are is
important. But it isn’t the only thing of moral importance. Morality
sometimes calls on us to set aside our own interests for the sake of others.

 Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is bad. It may

sometimes be appropriate to cause such extreme suffering, but doing so
requires a very powerful justification.

 Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get away with lots of things
that the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t justify what they do. That a person
can escape punishment is one thing—whether his actions are morally
acceptable is another.
 Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. If, with eyes wide
open and no one twisting your arm, you ask someone to do something for
you, and she does it, then your rights have not been violated— even if you
end up hurt as a result.

There are a number of points to make about these claims:

 First, this short list isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It could be made much
longer.
 Second, we are not claiming that the items on this list are beyond criticism.
We are only saying that each one is very plausible. Hard thinking might
weaken our confidence in some cases. The point, though, is that without
such scrutiny, it is perfectly reasonable to begin our moral thinking with the
items on this list.
 Third, many of these claims require interpretation in order to apply them in
a satisfying way. When we say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated
equally, we leave all of the interesting questions open. (What makes people
equal? Can we treat people equally without treating them in precisely the
same way? And so on.)

A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery, sadism, hostility, and

slavery is, depending on how you look at it, either no morality at all or a deeply
failed one. Any morality worth the name will place.

B. MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEMS

Morality is better understood by contrasting its principles with those of other
normative systems. Each represents a set of standards for how we ought to
behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.

1. Law - The fact that a law tells us to do something does not settle the
question of whether morality gives its stamp of approval. Some immoral
acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts (like
voicing criticism of a dictator) are not immoral. Certainly, man laws require
what morality requires and forbid what morality forbids. That a legislature
passed a bill is not enough to show that the bill is morally acceptable.

2. Etiquette - We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of

etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate, but it isn’t
immoral to set them on the right. Good manners are not the same thing as
morally good conduct. Morality may require us not to be polite or gracious
as when someone threatens your children or tells you a racist joke. So the
standards of etiquette can depart from those of morality.

3. Self-interest -The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-

interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in life by
betraying others, lying about their past, breaking the rules that others are
following. It’s an unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one: you
sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting immorally. Though the
relation between self-interest and morality is contested, we can assume
that morality can sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that
we can sometimes improve our lot in life by acting unethically.
4. Tradition - Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a practice
has been around a long time does not automatically make it moral.
Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as it did when people
called for the abolition of slavery or for allowing women to vote. And some
nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be morally excellent.
The longevity of a practice is not a foolproof test of its morality.

C. THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

Roughly, the Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow
dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s
commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately
based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is
the one that God commands or requires. The specific content of these divine
commands varies according to the particular religion and the particular views of
the individual divine command theorist, but all versions of the theory hold in
common the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend on God.

Divine Command Theory has been and continues to be highly controversial. It has
been criticized by numerous philosophers, including Plato, Kai Nielsen, and J. L.
Mackie. The theory also has many defenders, both classic and contemporary,
such as Thomas Aquinas, Robert Adams, and Philip Quinn.

The question of the possible connections between religion and ethics is of interest
to moral philosophers as well as philosophers of religion, but it also leads us to
consider the role of religion in society as well as the nature of moral deliberation.
Given this, the arguments offered for and against Divine Command Theory have
both theoretical and practical importance.

The Relation between God's Commands and Morality

Right actions are right just because God approves of them and wrong actions are
wrong just because God disapproves of them. This is the essence of the Divine
Command Theory of morality: God is a legislator of morality; he decides what's
right or wrong in the same way in which the state decides what's legal and what's
illegal.

But divine commands run the risk of being arbitrary. Note that one cannot say
that murder is forbidden by God because it’s wrong, if being wrong amounts
merely to being forbidden by God. That is, on what basis does God decide what's
wrong? Obviously, not on a moral basis.

When religious people say that God is moral, they want to convey more than a
simple truism. But this is possible only if God follows the moral law, which,
therefore, cannot depend on His will or promulgation. If morality depends on
God’s will, then those who praise His morality for doing what he does would
praise His morality for doing the opposite; this does not sound right to many
theists. If God commanded to kill the innocent wantonly, would murder still be
wrong? Many would say it would.
What could a theist say? Those theists who adopt this view often say that divine
commands stem from God’s nature, which is absolutely good, and that therefore
they are moral. One could go further and claim that God is not just but Justice,
nor loving but Love, not moral but Morality, etc. The God’s commands would be
ipso facto moral.

Does morality depend on religion?

The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly
believe that morality can be understood only in the context of religion. Thus the
clergy are assumed to be authorities on morality. When viewed from a
nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place,
devoid of value and purpose.

The Divine Command Theory

The basic idea is that God decides what is right and wrong. Actions that God
commands are morally required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong; and
all other actions are permissible or merely morally neutral. This theory has a
number of attractive features. It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social
custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if
God commands it and wrong if God forbids it.

The Divine Command Theory explains why any of us should bother with morality.
Why shouldn’t we just look out for ourselves? If immorality is the violation of
God’s commandments, then there is an easy answer: On the day of final
reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems with the theory. Atheists would not accept
it, because they do not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for
believers. One can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the gods
command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? This is a question
whether God makes the moral truths true or whether he merely recognizes that
they’re true.

First, we might say that right conduct is right because God commands it. But this
idea encounters several difficulties.
  This conception of morality is mysterious.
 This conception of morality makes God’s commands arbitrary.
 This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral
principles.

Second option has a different drawback. In taking it, we abandon the theological
conception of right and wrong. When we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard that is
independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to God’s command and is the
reason for the command.

GOD AND MORALITY

God approves of right actions because they are right and disapproves of wrong
actions because they are wrong (moral theological objectivism, or objectivism).
So, morality is independent of God’s will; however, since God is omniscient He
knows the moral laws, and because He’s moral, He follows them.

Then, God is a mere transmitter of values much in the same way in which a math
teacher is a transmitter of mathematics which, however, does not depend on her.
This view highlights the notion of divine righteousness.

The Role of God in Moral Knowledge. Many theists have argued that God,
whether the legislator of morality or not, has implanted in us the ability to
understand the basic laws of morality, so that believers and nonbelievers alike
can come to know how to behave.

The role of God as the guarantor of the universal objectivity of morality. Some
argue that without God, morality would just be a social convention without any
universal validity beyond cultures or self-interest.

The role of God as the ultimate administrator of justice. Some theists have
argued that morality depends on God because God is the only person who can
assure that justice is done, namely that in the next life one receives good and evil
in proportion to the good and evil one has done. In other words, morality can be
fully actualized only if God exists.
.