Ch7ppt velasquez12

CHAPTER SEVEN: ETHICSCHAPTER SEVEN: ETHICS

P H I L O S O P H YP H I L O S O P H YA TEXT WITH READINGSA TEXT WITH READINGS

1212thth EDITION EDITIONManual VelasquezManual Velasquez

Chapter 7: Chapter 7: ““EthicsEthics””

Outline of Topics in Chapter 7Outline of Topics in Chapter 7

• 7.1 What Is Ethics?

• 7.2 Is Ethics Relative?

• 7.3 Do Consequences Make an Action Right?

• 7.4 Do Rules Define Morality?

• 7.5 Is Ethics Based on Character?

• 7.6 Can Ethics Resolve Moral Quandaries?


7.1 What is Ethics7.1 What is Ethics

• As the opening pages indicate, we face many personal moral choices about issues.

• We are also confronted with public decisions we must make as a society – for example, whether to allow abortions, whether to force unwed fathers to support their children, etc.

• Ethics is the study of morality. It is a branch of philosophy that tries to determine what things in life are morally good and which actions are morally right.


Ethics and MoralityEthics and Morality

• Although ethics focuses on morality, it is not the same as morality. – Morality consists of the standards that an individual or

a group has about what is right and wrong or good and evil.

– Ethics is a reflective investigation of moral standards, with an aim to testing whether they are reasonable and justified, or need to be questioned and possibly revised.


7.27.2 Is Ethics Relative?Is Ethics Relative?• The social sciences also study morality, but

through a descriptive or factual investigation of moral behavior and beliefs. – These social sciences are concerned with how people

in fact behave or what people in fact believe about moral right and wrong.

• Ethics focuses on how people ought to behave or what people ought to believe about moral right and wrong.

• This distinction is important for understanding cross-cultural moral diversity.


Two Kinds of RelativismTwo Kinds of Relativism• The recognition of cross-cultural differences in moral

standards has led many social scientists to embrace descriptive relativism.– This is the claim that different societies or cultures have different

moralities and that what the people of one society or culture believe is morally wrong

• Descriptive relativism is often confused with ethical relativism.– This the view that moral right and wrong depends on a person’s

society or culture. – There has been a lively disagreement about whether ethical

relativism is true.

• .


An Argument for An Argument for Ethical Relativism Ethical Relativism

1. If there were a single set of “correct” moral standards of right and wrong by which everyone should live, then the moral standards people use to determine right and wrong would not differ from one society to another.

2. But the moral standards people use to determine right and wrong clearly differ from one society to another (as descriptive relativism holds).

3. Therefore, there is no single set of correct moral standards of right and wrong by which everyone should live.


Clarifying Ethical RelativismClarifying Ethical Relativism

• The anthropologist Melville J. Herskovits offers a version of this argument that makes three separate claims.– No moral system can be said to be “absolutely valid,”

i.e., there are no moral standards that all people ought to live by.

– What is right or wrong for a person is whatever that person’s culture or “traditions” say is right or wrong.

– The moral standards a person accepts are acquired through a process of “enculturation.”


Criticisms of Ethical RelativismCriticisms of Ethical Relativism

• Problems with ethical relativism include: – (1) It implies that moral standards cannot be

criticized. – (2) It assumes (falsely) that just because societies

differ in the moral standards they accept, therefore there is no correct group of moral standards.

– (3) It rules out the possibility of disagreement over right and wrong.

– (4) Ethical relativists are wrong to claim that no universal, cross-cultural moral values exist.


Criticism is not PossibleCriticism is not Possible

• According to ethical relativism, the moral norms of my society define what is right or wrong for me.– Therefore, the theory would rule out criticisms of the

moral norms of a society.– It would also require that one conform to those norms.

– In Herskovits’ words, what is demanded is “conformity to the code of the group”.


Misinterpreting DisagreementMisinterpreting Disagreement• The philosopher James Rachels makes another

criticism:– “The fact that different societies have different moral

codes proves nothing. There is also disagreement from society to society about scientific matters: in some cultures people believe that the earth is flat, and that evil spirits cause disease. We do not … conclude that there is no truth in geography or in medicine. Instead, we conclude that in some cultures people are better informed than in others. Similarly, disagreement in ethics might signal nothing more than that some people are less enlightened than others.” (462-463)


No Universals?No Universals?• Ethical relativists may also assume too quickly

that there no moral standards that all societies recognize. – Reflect on the fact that if any society is going to

survive, its members will have to accept some moral standards about how they should behave toward one another.

• For example, wouldn’t any society collapse if its members don’t recognize the moral standard to refrain from arbitrarily murdering their neighbors?

– How might differences about infanticide mask an underlying area of agreement? (463)


The Value of Tolerance The Value of Tolerance

• Ethical Relativism is often motivated by a concern about appreciation and tolerance of differences.– These is a legitimate concern: some societies may

have hit upon moral outlooks that are much better responses to the world than our own.

– We should, then, be tolerant and respectful of those different moral outlooks.

– On the other hand, appreciation and tolerance does not rule out thoughtful, informed criticism.

• CHAPTER SEVEN: ETHICSCHAPTER SEVEN: ETHICS

7.37.3 Do Consequences Make an Do Consequences Make an Action Right?Action Right?

• In the tragic situation of Matthew Donnelly, afflicted with a painful and incurable cancer, Harold Donnelly said that he did not feel that killing his brother was immoral. – It was much better for his brother to die than to suffer

the terrible consequences of continuing to live. – He appealed to the consequences as a justification

for what he felt he had to do.


Defining ConsequentialismDefining Consequentialism

• Consequentialism defines the morality of an action by its good or bad consequences. – Consequentialists weigh the amount of non-moral

good and the amount of non-moral bad that an action produces.

• They don’t count morally good or bad consequences as this would make the theory circular

– The morally right action is the one that produces more good (or less bad) non-moral consequences compared to any other action that could be performed in its place.


Two Kinds of GoodsTwo Kinds of Goods• According to consequentialists, the rightness or

wrongness of our actions depend on how much intrinsic good they produce and how much intrinsic evil they diminish. – An intrinsic good is good in itself.– An instrumental good is good for something else.

• Consequentialists offer competing accounts about which goods are intrinsically good.

• They also disagree about whether the goods to be considered are personal or social in nature.


HedonismHedonism

• Hedonists like Epicurus claim that the intrinsically good consequences are those that produce pleasure, whereas bad consequences are those that produce pain.– Epicurus enjoined us to focus on those pleasures that

are pure, and don’t produce pain.• He claimed that a life of sensory moderation, with many

friends was best suited to produce pleasure.

– Other consequentialists disagree with Epicurus, holding that intrinsic goods include not just pleasure but also knowledge, power, beauty, or love.


Ethical EgoismEthical Egoism• Hedonism raises the question about whether we

should we think only about the consequences affecting us individually, or those affecting everyone involved.

• Ethical egoism limits our attention to the consequences that affect us individually.

– Ethical egoism recognizes that our actions have consequences that can be good or bad for us.

– So, ethical egoism says that an action is morally right when it produces more good consequences for ourselves than any other action we might perform.


An Argument for Ethical EgoismAn Argument for Ethical Egoism

• Harry Brown argues that the belief that you should put the happiness of others ahead of your own happiness is false. – He claims that you should put your own happiness

ahead of the happiness of others because everyone else always puts their own happiness ahead of the happiness of others.

– “In fact, we can’t avoid a very significant conclusion: Everyone is selfish. Selfishness isn’t really an issue, because everyone selfishly seeks his own happiness.” (467)


Psychological EgoismPsychological Egoism• Browne’s argument relies on a view about

people that is called “psychological egoism” which holds that people always act out of self-interest. – Ethical egoism holds that people ought to act out of

self-interest, while psychological egoism holds that people always act out of self-interest (whether they ought to or not).

– Browne is arguing that since psychological egoism is true, it follows that you (and everyone else) ought to always act out of self-interest.


Criticisms of Ethical EgoismCriticisms of Ethical Egoism• Some philosophers criticize the assumption of

psychological egoism.– For example, James Rachels argues that merely

because we are doing what we want, it does not follow that what we want is to advance our own interests. If what we want is to advance the interests of others, then when we do what we want we are not acting selfishly.

• Kurt Baier (1917-2010) argued that in situations where one’s desires conflict with the desires of others, ethical egoism implies ethical prescriptions that are contradictory.


UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

• In contrast to ethical egoism, utilitarianism asserts that the standard of morality is the promotion of good for everyone.

• For utilitarians a morally right action is one that produces more good or fewer bad consequences for everyone.– Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill

(1806–1873) are the classic proponents of utilitarianism.


BenthamBentham’’s Utilitarianisms Utilitarianism

• Like Epicurus, Bentham claims pain and pleasure govern us in all we do.– He articulates a “principle of utility” which says that

morally right actions are those that increase the happiness or pleasures of the community.

– He argues that the pleasures and pains our actions produce for everyone should be measured so that we can choose the one that produces the greatest quantity of pleasure or the least quantity of pain for everyone affected by the action.


Measuring PleasureMeasuring Pleasure

• Bentham suggests that pleasures and pains can be measured by their intensity, duration, certainty, their tendency to produce additional pleasures or pains, etc.– Critics have wondered what yardstick we can use to

measure pleasures and pains.– For example, suppose one kind of pleasure (e.g., the

pleasure of drinking a beer) is as intense, as long, as certain, etc., as another kind of pleasure (e.g., the pleasure of listening to a Beethoven symphony); must we conclude they are equally valuable?


MillMill’’s Utilitarianisms Utilitarianism

• Mill accepted the principle of utility but tweaked it a bit.– He argued that the quality of pleasures and pains is

as important as their quantity when determining what one ought to do.

– He argued that it is the value of higher quality pleasures that should be maximized – not lower quality.


Higher and Lower PleasuresHigher and Lower Pleasures

• Mill faces the objection that most people prefer the “lower” pleasures of sex, food, and drink, over the “higher” pleasures of, say, listening to a Beethoven symphony.– He answers this objection by arguing that the value of

two kinds of pleasures depends on the preferences of those who have experienced both.

– In such instances, people would prefer the higher over the lower pleasures because they would rather be “a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”


Two Version of UtilitarianismTwo Version of UtilitarianismAct Utilitarianism

• Act utilitarianism identifies morally right actions with particulars act that produces more pleasure and less pain for everyone. – This is similar to Bentham’s

version of the theory– Act utilitarianism seems to

sometimes require injustices and rights violations.

Rule Utilitarianism

• Rule utilitarianism holds that we should act so that the rules governing our actions are those that will produce the greatest happiness for everybody– This is similar to Mill’s

version of the theory.– Rule utilitarianism is

supposed to not have the wrong implications that act utilitarianism does.


Problems with Rule Problems with Rule UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

• First, there is the problem of trying to figure out the consequences of promoting one rule over another. – How can we know that one rule will have better social

consequences than another?

• Second, rules that allow for exceptions seem to promise more happiness than rules that don’t, but such rules are problematic.– For example, wouldn’t the rule “We should never punish people

for something they didn’t do, except in those instances where punishing them will leave everyone else better off” be better than “We should never punish people for something they didn’t do?”

– But allowing for exceptions opens rule utilitarianism to the same objections raised against act utilitarianism.


ImplicationsImplications

• Many people believe that, despite these problems, utilitarianism provides a powerful analysis of ethics. – How would you apply utilitarianism to the moral issues

raised at the beginning of this chapter: our sexual behavior?

– How do Richard Taylor’s and The Ramsey Colloquium’s application of utilitarian principles to sexual ethics differ?


7.47.4 Do Rules Define Morality?Do Rules Define Morality?

• Nonconsequentialist theories maintain that the morality of an action depends on factors other than consequences, such as following rules and doing one’s duty.

• We’ll consider three kinds of nonconsequentialism: 1.Divine command theory

2.Natural law ethics

3.Kantian ethics.


Scriptural Divine Scriptural Divine Command Theories Command Theories

• For all divine command theorists, morality is independent of what any individual thinks or likes and what any society happens to sanction. – God establishes moral laws; they are eternally true

and are universally binding on all people, regardless of whether everyone obeys them.

– Such God-established laws are generally interpreted in a religious tradition and are often expressed in that religion’s sacred scriptures.

• E.g., the Ten Commandments


Which Divine Command Which Divine Command Should We Heed?Should We Heed?

• Different sacred scriptures exist within different religious traditions – for example, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.: Which one expresses what God commands? – There is some overlap in what each says: For

example, both Judaism and Islam say that God commands us to respect our parents.

– However, they differ in many respects about the specifics of what God commands.

– How are we to know which of these scriptures is right or which one we should follow?


A DilemmaA Dilemma

• In light of Plato’s Euthyphro (see chapter 1), Scriptural Divine Command Theory raises a deeper, more fundamental problem in the form of a dilemma: – Are actions right because God commands them, or

does God command them because they are right? – Why does this question present a dilemma for the

adherent of this theory? Why is each way of resolving the dilemma not fully satisfactory? (478)


Natural Law EthicsNatural Law Ethics

• Natural law ethics is a second version of Divine Command Theory.– It focuses on the claim that human nature has certain

natural tendencies and that morally right actions are those that follow these natural tendencies.

– Because God created these tendencies, following them is doing what God intended us to do.


Stoic Natural LawStoic Natural Law

• The Stoics, followers of the school of thought originally founded by Zeno around 300 BCE, held a natural law ethic. – For example, they believed that there is a kind of

universal natural order in the world put there by God that the human mind can discover.

– To the extent that humans live according to this universal order, as it is exhibited in their own human nature, they will flourish and be happy.

– This natural order can be discovered through the use of reason.


Thomistic Natural LawThomistic Natural Law

• Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also argued that reason can discover God’s commands by reflecting on human nature.– Aquinas held that because God created the universe,

the laws that govern it are divinely imposed on it. – In particular, God imposed on human beings certain

“natural laws” through the natural inclinations that He built into human nature when He created humans.


Natural InclinationsNatural Inclinations

• Morality arises when our reason becomes aware of the “natural inclinations” that God built into human nature. • By reflecting on these natural human inclinations, we

can discover the specific goods that God commands humans to promote: human life, family, knowledge, and an orderly society.

• Actions are morally right when they aim at securing these goods, and they are morally wrong when they aim at destroying these goods.


Applications: Taking Life Applications: Taking Life • Aquinas held that suicide was immoral., but not

merely because the Christian scriptures say that it is wrong to take one’s life. – Instead, Aquinas argued that human nature has a

built-in inclination to desire life.

• How would a natural law theorists deal with life and death issues such as saving a life by taking another life, in self-defense? – Explain how the principle of double effect could be

applied to resolve this dilemma?


Criticisms and ImplicationsCriticisms and Implications

• Critics have wondered why we should be morally obligated to pursue the goods that our natural inclinations seek. – Why are our inclinations the measure of what is

naturally good for us? Isn’t it possible that we might be naturally inclined to things that are not necessarily good for us?

• What is the criticism centering on conflicts among fundamental goods?

• What the implications of natural law theory are for sexual ethics? (482-484)


Kantian Ethical TheoryKantian Ethical Theory

• Although Immanuel Kant was a deeply religious man, he rejected divine command theories of ethics as well as utilitarian theories. – Kant held that a person should exercise ‘“autonomy of

the will,” and choose for herself the moral principles that she will follow.

– The trouble with divine command theories and utilitarianism is is that they are heteronomous: they enjoin someone (God) or something else (the desire for pleasure) to decide the moral principles that one will follow.


The Good WillThe Good Will• The “will,” for Kant, is our ability to choose what

we will do and the reasons on which we will act.• Kant argued that a person with a good will does

what is right – Not because it will produce such and such

consequences, or satisfy his inclinations.– But because he believes it is his moral duty to do it.– “Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for a law”

and “a law is an objective principle valid for every rational being and a principle on which everyone ought to act.” (486)


The Categorical ImperativeThe Categorical Imperative• Kant concludes that a person has a morally

good will when the person does what is right because he believes it is what everyone in a situation like his ought to do. – He summarizes this in “the categorical imperative”: I

ought never to act except in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law.

– A maxim is the reason a person in a certain situation has for doing what he does; that maxim would “become a universal law” if every person in a similar situation chose to do the same thing for the same reason.


Four ScenariosFour Scenarios

• Explain each of Kant’s four practical examples of the categorical imperative:– Perfect duty to oneself.– Perfect duty to others.– Imperfect duty to oneself.– Imperfect duty to others.

(487-488)

• What are the two aspects of the categorical imperative?


Two Aspects of the Two Aspects of the Categorical ImperativeCategorical Imperative

• Kant’s examples show that the categorical imperative really has two aspects.

• It says that I should never do something for a certain reason unless– (1) it is possible for everyone to do the same thing for

the same reason;

– and (2) I am willing to have everyone do the same thing for the same reason, even toward me.


The Second Version of the The Second Version of the Categorical ImperativeCategorical Imperative

• While there is only one categorical imperative principle, Kant believed we could express it in more than one way. – Kant thought every person has a fundamental dignity

that gives the person a value “beyond all price.” – Thus, it is wrong to use people or to manipulate them

without their consent to satisfy our own personal desires.

– He expressed these ideas in these words: Act so that you always treat people as ends in themselves, and never merely use them as means.


Four ScenariosFour Scenarios

• How does Kant illustrate this version of the categorical imperative in the following examples?– Strict duty to oneself.– Strict duty to others.– Meritorious duty to oneself.– Meritorious duty to others.


InterpretationInterpretation

• For Kant, to respect a person as an end is to respect her capacity to freely and knowingly choose for herself what she will do. – To treat a person as a means is to use the person to

achieve my personal goals.

– Thus, this second version says that we should treat people only as they freely and knowingly consent to be treated, and not merely use them as a means to our own goals.

– What sorts of actions does this rule out? (491)


Conflict and ImplicationConflict and Implication

• Explain why Kant’s theory is vulnerable to the objection that it can’t handle conflicts among duties. Give an example.

• What are the implications of Kant’s theory for sexual ethics?

(491-491)


Buddhist EthicsBuddhist Ethics

• Buddhist ethics is not reducible to any of the ethical theories we have thus far considered:– As opposed to consequentialist ethics, It doesn’t aim

at advancing the individual’s or society’s happiness – although it is concerned with freeing sentient beings from suffering.

– It is not an ethic of duty, either, whether this be conceived in terms of divine command theory (Buddhism is nontheistic) or Kantian duty (there is no categorical imperative in Buddhism).


Two GeneralizationsTwo Generalizations

• There are two generalizations that drive Buddhist ethics.1. Volitional (voluntary) actions are considered supremely

important because, according to the law of causation (karma), they determine our destiny. We are what we voluntarily do.• What we have done will determine what we will become.

2. Ethics is not a set of obligations or duties, but a form of embodied wisdom that liberates us individually and collectively from suffering.

•


The Four Noble TruthsThe Four Noble Truths

• The Four Noble Truths articulates the importance of suffering:1. All existence involves suffering.

2. Suffering is caused by craving: greed, aversion and delusion.

3. Freedom from craving and thus suffering is possible.

4. The way to freedom is the Noble eightfold path.• This involves cultivating (1) correct understanding, (2)

correct resolve, (3) correct speech, (4) correct conduct, (5) correct livelihood, (6) correct effort, (7) correct mindfulness, and (8) correct concentration.


ImplicationsImplications

• For Buddhism, ethical conduct is an aspect of the eight fold path. – Walking the path implies an ethical way of life: ethics

is a condition of liberation; on the other hand, ethics as wisdom and compassion emerge from walking the path.

– What are the implications of Buddhist ethics for sexual ethics? (496)

•


7.5 Is Ethics Based on Character?

• With the exception of Buddhism, all of the theories we’ve considered focus on principles or rules that define the actions we are morally obligated or have a moral duty to perform.– Philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre argue that

ethics should not be concerned primarily with rules about what one should do, or how one should act, but with the virtues that make us morally good persons.

– This approach to ethics is sometimes called virtue ethics.


Aristotle’s Theory of Virtue

• In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote that human beings can be happy only if they fulfill their basic “function.” – That is, humans can be happy only if they fulfill the

capacities of their human nature in an excellent way.– The capacity of reason is unique to being human so

Aristotle humans should act with reason. • That is, we humans will be happy only if we have the ability to

act with reason in the various circumstances of our life. • Because the ability to do something well is a virtue, Aristotle

concludes that humans will achieve happiness only by developing their virtues.


Aristotelian VirtueAristotelian Virtue• For Aristotle, a virtue is the ability to be

reasonable in our actions, desires, and emotions, and to be reasonable is to act with moderation. – For example, courage is the ability to deal with fear in

a moderate way and not in an excessive or deficient manner; temperance is the ability to respond to pleasures in a moderate way.

– Aristotle calls the moderate way “the mean.”– He believes that having such virtues is the key to

happiness because these virtues enable us to act as humans were meant to act.


Learning to be VirtuousLearning to be Virtuous

• We are not born with such abilities, he points out, but acquire them by training in our communities. – In particular, we acquire them in youth by being

trained repeatedly to respond to situations in a reasonable manner.

– As Aristotle puts it, we become virtuous by being trained to act virtuously in the appropriate situations until it becomes a habit.

– Over time, we acquire virtues and learn to take pleasure in acting virtuously.


The Implication for The Implication for Judging Actions Judging Actions

• We shape our moral character through the actions we choose; our character in turn influences the actions we choose.

• To assess the moral rightness or wrongness of moral behavior, then, we must look at the kind of character that the behavior produces, and the kind of character that such behavior expresses.

• How does Janet Smith approach the issue of adultery using virtue theory? What are the limits of this analysis? (500-501)


FriendshipFriendship• Aristotle and other philosophers have argued that

the ability to form friendships is an essential component of living morally. – Indeed, Aristotle thought friendship is a kind of virtue

that is essential to human life.– He thought that friendship occurs when each friend

wishes good for the other, both are aware of this, and each does so because he believes the other is good, pleasurable, or useful.

– True or complete friendship requires wishing good for each other because of the good each sees in the other.


Love and FriendshipLove and Friendship

• True or complete friendship requires that each friend wishes good for each other.

• In such cases, each friend loves the other for what he is, not for what he provides; such friendships require time, familiarity, and trust.

• The three traditional kinds of love are:• philia (brotherly love); • eros (passionate love);• and agape (unconditional love).


What is Love?What is Love?

• Limiting love to the love between two people, we can say that all forms of love involve minimally some strong, positive regard for the other, as we see their goodness or value. – These sorts of attitudes are also characteristic of non-

loving attitudes such as liking respecting, and admiring,

– There are at least four views on what else love involves…


Four Views of LoveFour Views of Love

1. The Relationship View

2. The Emotion View

3. The Union View

4. The Creative View

• After explaining each of these, raise one objection or shortcoming about each of the views (503-505)

• Which view do you like the best and why?


Male and Female EthicsMale and Female Ethics

• Although Aristotle and other virtue theorists have not placed love at the center of ethics, recently, several philosophers have explored the differences between the way that men and women think about ethics, arguing that something akin to love should be included in any adequate theory of ethics.– Some have argued that men tend to focus on issues

that an ethics of principles emphasizes, whereas women tend to focus on issues regarding care and concern, in the context of an ethics of virtue.


Carol GilliganCarol Gilligan

• The psychologist Carol Gilligan was one of the first women to argue that men and women approach ethics differently, and that women are not ethically inferior to men.– Gilligan’s work is a response to the views of her

teacher, Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist whose work seemed to imply that women, on average, were less morally developed than men are.


Kohlberg’s Theory of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Moral Development

• Kohlberg claimed to show that moral development moves through three levels: 1. a preconventional level, focused on the self;

2. a conventional level, focused on being accepted by a group and accepting the group’s conventional morality;

3. a postconventional level, focused on moral principles.

– Kohlberg’s research showed that most women seemed to remain at the less advanced conventional level.


Gilligan’s CritiqueGilligan’s Critique

• Gilligan highlighted a serious flaw in Kohlberg’s work: He had developed his stages of moral development by studying mostly men.

• Consequently his theory really describes how men’s morality develops and not how women’s morality develops. – Gilligan then argues that women do not advance to

Kohlberg’s third level of male development, because they advance instead to a third level of female development that Kohlberg’s theory ignores.


The Importance of CareThe Importance of Care

• Based on her own studies of women, Gilligan argued that what is distinctive about the morality of women is their focus on caring and relationships

• She articulates her own three stages:– (1) a stage in which women are overly devoted to

caring for themselves;– (2) a stage in which women are overly devoted to

caring for others; – and (3) a stage in which they achieve a balance

between caring for self and caring for others.


Nel NoddingsNel Noddings

• While Gilligan argues that women’s care-centered approach is not inferior to men’s ethics, other feminist philosophers have taken a more radical stand. – For one such thinker, Nel Noddings, the ethical

person is the person who cares for another specific individual during an actual encounter with that unique person and who manifests her concern for that specific individual through loving deeds.

– In such relationships, the caring person does not consult abstract principles or universal rules.


Becoming a Caring PersonBecoming a Caring Person

• Noddings claims that as a person grows and acquires the capacity to care for others as well as for herself, she forms a picture of her ideal self as a caring person. – Ethical behavior arises when one feels caring for

another person and freely chooses to act on this feeling, motivated by the desire to live up to the ideal of being a caring person

– “The source of ethical behavior is, then, in twin sentiments—one that feels directly for the other and one that feels for and with the best self…” (507)


Exploring Care and Virtue Exploring Care and Virtue EthicsEthics

• What are two criticisms of the care-centered approach to ethics?– How do you suppose Gilligan or Noddings would

respond to these?

• Explain the author’s four conclusions regarding the strengths of virtue ethics as compared to rule-based approaches.

(508-510)


7.6 Can Ethics Resolve Moral 7.6 Can Ethics Resolve Moral Quandaries?Quandaries?

• In light of the overview of major ethical theories, we should now ask this question: How should we use these theories in our own moral lives? – Although all the theories have shortcomings, each of

the theories identifies aspects of our behavior that we should take into account:

• the pleasures and pains our actions will cause;• the basic goods our nature prompts us to pursue; • the obligations we believe all humans should live up to; • and the virtues and vices our actions both express and

develop.


ComplexityComplexity

• Applying the four kinds of theories sometimes leads to conflicting outcomes. – One should expect this in a world like ours, where all

situations are complex with multifaceted moral features.

– Each theory will pick out a different subset of these features and use them to decide what to do.

– In light of this complexity, we should keep in mind John Dewey’s insight that the “zeal” for a unitary view in moral philosophy has limited its usefulness.


The Worth of Ethical ThoughtThe Worth of Ethical Thought

• This does not mean that these different approaches to ethics are useless. – By considering each of the theories in turn, and

asking what each of them would say about a moral issue, we can come to a full and informed understanding of all the factors that we should take into consideration when making moral decisions.

– But in the end, as Dewey notes, “each human being has to make the best adjustment he can” among these various theories.


Two QuandariesTwo Quandaries

• Abortion and euthanasia are two complex moral issues. (511-520)– How do each of the moral theories outlined in the

chapter illuminate these issues? What features of the issue do they bring to foreground?

– What differing conclusions do they imply, and why?– Is there any way to resolve the differences?– Which approach makes the most sense to you?


Education

Ch7ppt velasquez12