Ethical Emotivism

Emotivism is also called Non Cognitivism signifying that the theory centers upon the understanding of ethical statements as rational, but rather as a Non Cognitivist or Emotive (Emotional). Emotivism is closely related to Logical Positivism and the Principle of Verification in which advocates contend that religious, moral, and aesthetic statements cannot be verified as "true" and therefore should be regarded as nonsensical. In short meaningful judgments are those which have a method of verification otherwise such judgments are disguised nonsense.

Advocates of Emotivism include A.J. Ayer, Charles Stevenson and Richard Hare. Ayer argued that moral judgments are simply devices to express our attitudes, desires, and emotions about the world. To say something is "good" is not to attribute a property to that item in any sense. Instead, when we say that something is "good" we are expressing our own attitude or sentiment toward that object.

Emotivism has also been called "The Boo/Hurrah Theory". For example, to say that a particular piece of art is "good" is to express an emotional exclamation of "Hurrah" and to say that a particular piece of art is "bad" is to "boo" the object. Stevenson and Hare later refined the movement arguing that such statements are not merely statements, but are intended not only to verbalize ones approval or disapproval. Rather ethical utterances intend to influence the attitudes of others. For example, when I cheer at a football game i aim at influencing others to do the same. Stevenson even went so far as to argue that there is a sense in which ethical language is meaningful and is simply reflective of another domain which requires different terminology. This seems to be reflective also of the later Wittgenstein's understanding of the Language Game.

Egoism

Egoism comes in two forms: Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism. Psychological Egoism is a descriptive theory which contends that every human action is motivated by self-interest. According to Psychological Egoism individuals act only in order to advance their own self-interests.

Ethical Egoism is a prescriptive ethical theory. The theory contends that each person ought to maximally advance his or her own self-interest. The right thing for a person to do is to advance their own interests and Psychological Egoism says that individuals will do so, while Ethical Egoism says that individuals should do so.

A number of criticisms have been launched at Egoism, specifically Ethical Egoism. First, it is not positive to base life or society purely on self-interests. Second, when each individual pursues his or her own self-interests this inevitably leads to personal, social, and political chaos. Third, the theory is flawed in that it contends that the more the individual asserts his or her rights the better off everyone will be. There is something inherently contradictory in this belief. Finally, the theory is simply contrary to common sense and human intuition.

Aristotle and The Golden Means

Aristotle advanced the concept of "The Golden Means" in relation to the virtues. He argued that in the possession and display of the preferred virtues, each virtue must be properly balanced. On the one hand, a particular virtue may be possessed to the point of excess. On the other hand, the same virtue may be possessed to the point of deficiency. For example, Aristotle considers the virtue of Courage. In a moral context, an individual may possess Courage excessively and this excess will manifest itself in the forms of foolhardiness. However, the individual may possess a deficiency of Courage and this deficiency will be manifested in the form of cowardliness. For Aristotle, any virtue which the individual may strive to cultivate in life is liable to the extremes of excess or deficiency.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is also known as "Neo Aristotelian Ethics" due to Aristotle's original emphasis upon the role of the virtues in moral behavior. Contemporary virtue ethics asks essentially three questions:

• Who do you most admire?

• What do you most admire about them?

• What list of traits would you use to describe them?

Whereas other ethical theories ask, "What should an individual do in a given moral dilemma?" Virtue ethics asks, "What kind of person do I want to be in this moral dilemma?" The shift of emphasis therefore is away from "doing" toward "being." This is due to the conclusion that "being" always precedes "doing". Put differently, what we choose to "do" in a given situation is reflective of who we "are". The two are intimately related.

Aristotle divided the virtues into two categories: The Intellectual Virtues and the Moral Virtues. Aristotle defined the intellectual virtues as those virtues which enable an individual to understand, reason and to judge well. He proposed that the Intellectual virtues are learned from one's teachers. The Moral Virtues according to Aristotle are those which give an individual the ability to act well in the living of life in general and in a moral dilemma in particular. The Moral Virtues are learned through repetition.

Nietzsche, Slave Morality and Master Morality

For Nietzsche, there are two levels of morality: the slave morality and the master morality.

The slave morality is a morality of the "herd" and is based on the mediocre majority and this morality is a control mechanism of the strong toward the weak. Those in power create the slave morality for the purposes of controlling the masses. This effort of control in turn creates resentment on behalf of the controlled toward those in power. Thus the slave morality speaks of such ethical categories as pity, tolerance, modesty, sympathy, humility, respect, freedom, and happiness. Commitment to the pursuit of these qualities results in the continued domination of the weak and consequently the resentment of the weak toward the strong.

The master morality is attainable only by the elite and produces a higher level of humanity designated as the Ubermensch or Superman. This "higher type" of human is solitary, deals with others only as instruments, manifest resilience, affirm this life rather than the life beyond and exhibit self-reverence or nobility. Nietzsche's most in depth discussion of the issue is found in his Beyond Morality.

As previously stated, the slave object that is the focus of the slave morality possesses resentment toward those in power according to Nietzsche. In other words, the average person resents those who determine values, standards and qualities of right and wrong, moral and immoral. The slave therefore calls all who are morally creative "evil". Herein lies the basis for Nietzsche's conclusions regarding Christian morality.

For Nietzsche, Christianity morality is inadequate for a number of reasons. First, Christian morality is antilife. As such, Christian morality shifts the focus on the average persons from this life to the life beyond. For Nietzsche, there is an antilife dimension to all religion and not just Christianity.

This antilife mentality is also present, for instance, within the faith constructs of Buddhism, Islam and any other religious system. With regard to Christianity, the emphasis upon the future life as a place either of eternal life or eternal torture is demonstrative of this anti life spirit. According to Nietzsche, Western Christianized society and its masses generally say "No" to life in the present and focus primarily on the life to come (Though it seems that this perspective is shifting as Western society becomes increasingly secularized and the role of religion on the Western mind set diminishes.)

According to Nietzsche, in the past people were distinguished by strength, vitality, and courage. These individuals formed a natural nobility and aristocracy and get the way through the "will to power" which is a key phrase for Nietzsche. Eventually the masses were subdued by the aristocracy and the result was that civil society began.

One of the conditions of civil society is that differing groups must cooperate with others in order for there to be structure in the society. The Master Morality imposed upon the masses was a mechanism of control which in turn was to lead to civil order. However, despite the efforts of the elite, the animal instincts of humanity are still present. Consequently, there is a tendency toward a "slave revolt mentality" against the rules of morality imposed by the elite upon the herd or masses.

From this resentment emerges the Christian understanding of eternal torment or reward. Christian eschatological accountability, according to Nietzsche, is a product of the resentment of the masses toward the elite who have imposed a morality of control upon them. The threat of divine punishment is an attempt on the part of the masses to counter the control efforts of the elite.

Finally, Nietzsche not only argued that Christianity is anti life, that Christianity's hope for eschatological accountability is a sort of revenge mechanism, but also that Christianity diminishes the potential of the human person. In short, Nietzsche argues that human success can be accomplished not by placing one's faith in a God who is in reality dead, but rather by self-reliance. From this concept emerges conclusion that what does not kill the individual only serves to make the individual stronger. The adversities and challenges of human existence, rather than compelling us to trust in the delusion of a God who will get us through, should in reality create within the individual strength based in one's own identity. This self-reliant overcoming individual is the Ubermensch.

Anti Ethics: Efforts to Undermine Ethics

Existentialism: Existentialism represents an attempt to refocus consideration of moral decisions from the issue confronted to the "actor" confronting the issue. The focus of Existentialism is upon the role of "human choice" which evidences the Existentialist confidence in human freedom. The paradox of Existentialism lies in the belief that in our choices we restrict our destiny and ultimately determine who we will be and what we will be like. Advocates of existential ethics include Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Martin Heidegger.

Hume and the Naturalistic Fallacy: No "is" implies an "ought." No factual claims, such as those about whether actions produce pleasure, can be the basis for statements about what we are obligated to do. This is designated as "the naturalistic fallacy" since it takes something that is part of nature and tries to make a metaethical claim or one that transcends nature. The Naturalistic Fallacy is associated with the work of David Hume.

G. E. Moore: Since the good cannot be defined in terms of any natural quality then the attempt to define the good in terms of other facts must result in a fallacy. The alternative is that good is simply a quality like yellow or blue. You either know it or you don't.

Logical Positivism: Moral statements are neither analytic or true b definition nor are they synthetic, true by observation. They merely express a feeling or a command. They are not true or false except insofar as they tell us about the feelings of another. A. J. Ayer and Ludwig Wittgenstein are advocates of Logical Positivism, though the later Wittgenstein reflects somewhat of a departure from the movement.

Cultural Relativism: Moral values are relative to one’s culture. There are no universally held values.

Ethical relativism: No one set of morality or values ought to be applied to all

Nietzsche and the Will to Power: For Nietzsche, ethics is essentially an expression of the impulse to create value, the will to life and the will to power. The creation of value is good because it promotes advancement beyond the human.

Kant, the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule

Frequently the perceived familiarity between Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule is mentioned. However there is an important distinction to be made between the two. The Golden Rule states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Kant's Categorical Imperative contends, "We should act according to the maxim that we would wish that all individuals would act according to when confronted by a moral dilemma."

Two important qualities of the Golden Rule emerge after examination. First the Golden Rule is based upon what an individual wants. Second, the Rule is based upon an individuals desire for self-protection. Kant's Categorical Imperative is not concerned with either of these concerns.

Kant based his Categorical Imperative upon "reason" or "human rationality" not "want" or "human will" or "desire." Kant, as previously stated, concluded that there is an inherent risk when one establishes morality upon human volition. Therefore, Kant attempted to base morality upon something much more profound and universal than emotion or will. He founded morality in human reason.

In contradistinction to the Golden Rule's emphasis upon a desire for self-protection, Kant's categorical imperative has no concern for the self or for self-protection. The Categorical Imperative is based exclusively upon "good will" and a sense of duty to do that which is right.

Therefore the distinction between the Golden Imperative and Kant's Categorical Imperative is subtle yet highly significant.

Kantian Ethics and the Categorical Imperative

According to Kant, morality is not based upon "hypothetical imperatives" which proposes that "If you want X (happiness for instance) then do Y." This approach to morality is Consequentialist and, as previously noted, Kant rejects Consequentialist ethics.

Kant chooses to base morality upon what he terms a "categorical imperative" which proposes simply "You must do X regardless of the outcome or consequences." The risk inherent to Consequentialist ethics and hypothetical moral imperatives lies in the reality that individuals vary in their understanding of the consequences or outcomes which should be desired, and therefore their means for attaining those goals would differ as well.

According to Kant, morality should not vary from individual to individual. Morality should not be rooted in what we "want" to do (human volition), but should be based upon the use of reason and rationality.

The designation "categorical imperative" is significant in that the word "categorical" entails Kant's conviction that morality and the basis for morality should be inclusive of all individuals regardless of their own particular context for moral decision-making. The term "imperative" reveals Kant's conviction that there exists an actual moral criterion upon which each individual "must" based moral decisions. In other words, Kant was searching for a foundation for morality, which is required of each individual regardless of his or her own life situation.

Kant's Categorical Imperative emerged in two forms. The first essentially stated that when confronted by a moral dilemma the individual should act upon that maxim or rule which they would prefer that each individual act upon. The second essentially stated that in a moral dilemma with other human beings we should always treat others as an end in themselves rather than using them as means to an end.

Kant proposed that a standard for morality should possess two criteria: universal consistency and universal acceptability. Regarding the criteria of consistency, Kant argued for instance that a maxim such as "lie when you can hey away with it" cannot be universalized consistently because if people lied when they thought they could get away with it you would never know when anyone was telling the truth. However, there are maxims, which can be universalized without contradiction, but these maxims are not universally acceptable. For instance, imagine a selfish world where no one helps out others except for personal gain; however, such a world would not be acceptable to everyone and the fact that it does not have universal acceptability makes it a maxim on which no moral action can be based.

Kantian Ethics and Consequentialist Ethics

Kantian ethics is deontological ethical theory. Kant rejects Consequentialist ethics for the following reasons:

1) According to Consequentialist ethics, no act is right or wrong in itself. The rightness or wrongness of a particular act is determined rather by the consequences of the act.

2) Consequentialism constitutes a denial of moral freedom according to Kant. According to Consequentialist ethics we are inclined toward the doing of a particular oral deed because we desire to produce good such as pleasure and happiness, which is in itself a restriction of moral freedom and prohibits us from the outset from acting responsibly.

3) Consequentialist ethics is contextual. In other words, Kant argued individual's contextual situations vary by culture, age, education, society, etc. Therefore, what one person determines as the "right" consequences, may differ from the determinations of another person.

4) Consequentialist ethics is overly optimistic regarding the human ability to determine moral consequences. As a result, how can we be held responsible for those consequences?

For these reasons, Kant rejected teleological or Consequentialist ethical theories and advocated a morality based upon one's moral duty as encapsulated in what Kant called "the categorical imperative."

Divine Command Ethics

Divine Command Ethics is a deontological ethical theory in which its proponents argue that the right thing to do in a given moral dilemma is that which is commanded by God.

While a number of Theologians have advocated Divine Command Ethics, it seems that the foremost advocate in the origination of the theory is Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a Danish existentialist theologian-philosopher. For Kierkegaard "ethics" had more than one meaning. It entailed a "social" and a "religious" dimension.

In one sense ethics denoted a limited existential social sphere, which represents a more primitive understanding of what it means to be moral than that of the religious sphere. For Kierkegaard "ethics' represents the prevailing social norms and he also argued that social norms are the highest court of appeal for judging human affairs.

According to Kierkegaard nothing outranks the social norms for ethicist of this domain. He even goes so far as to contend that in the context of social norm human sacrifice may be justified in terms of how it serves the community.

In his "Fear and Trembling" Kierkegaard argued that when Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia, he is regarded as a tragic hero since the sacrifice is required for the success of the Greek expedition to Troy.

However, according to Kierkegaard there is a higher level of "ethics", which is the level of the religious. This level is retained in the context of the religious life of the individual. In this sense Kierkegaard recognized a duty to a power higher than social norms.

He cites Abraham's "almost" sacrifice of Isaac as an example of obedience not to social norm but to the command of God. In fact, it will be noticed that Kierkegaard's second level of "ethics" may even required an ethic that is contrary to social norm as seen in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. In this event Kierkegaard emphasized that Abraham recognized a duty to something higher than a social duty not to kill an innocent person.

Objections;

1) For Kierkegaard it is possible that God suspended that which is ethics in the sense of social prescribed norms. Isn't this dangerous in that it allowed for the possibility of delusional behavior such as that expressed in the statement, "God told me to do it?"

2) In the event of Divine Fiat or Command we have no recourse to public reason. In fact the dependence upon such a command may even be irrational as previously cited in the previous criticism. We cannot use reason to decide whether a person is legitimately obeying God's command or whether he is a deluded sociopath.

3) Since the legitimacy of ethical behavior based on Divine Fiat cannot be determined by public rationality, the legitimacy must be established based on religious faith. Doesn't this relegate religiously based behavior or ethical decisions to a dangerous subjectivism.?

Deep Ecology Ethics

Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess advocates deep ecology ethics. In the proposal Naess addresses the issue of environmental ethics. According to the theory all of life is valuable in itself and not merely insofar as it can be used by human beings for our own purposes. As parts of a larger whole whose richness and diversity must be respected, we maximize our own self-realization by promoting the welfare of the whole. We should consequently cut back on human population growth and selfish consumption of natural resources. The theory is aimed at reminding humans of our place in the cosmos not as dominators or abuses but as "part of" the universe and stands as a call to ecological consciousness and responsibility.

The Philosophical ethical theory is based to some extent or at least resembles the basic teachings of 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza who argued that everything in nature is part of God and it seems that Spinoza even went so far as to equate nature with God, an approach which came to be known as "pantheism." To accept the fact that all things are one is to embrace God. When we no longer see the world solely from our own perspective we should accept everything as valuable in itself rather than as something, which we can exploit, since such exploitation would be to unjustifiably claim that we are more important than anything else in the created order.

From consideration of the topic emerges the question, "What is our lace as humans in the cosmos?" There are basically three perspectives, which have developed in response to the ever-reorienting response to this question: The Pre Modern Answer, the Modern Answer and the Post Modern Answer.

The Pre Modern Answer proposed that, as human beings, we are above the material world and under the world of spiritual beings. Still according to this approach humanity has a unique place in the created order and have been assigned the task of "ruling over", managing, and controlling creation according to Theologians.

The Modern Answer to the question of humanity's place in the cosmos rejected the ancient pre modern perspective and proposed that our identity is to be found in our being creators within the cosmos. According to this position, the universe is not a "home" to which we naturally belong but rather it is the material object of our transforming work. This perspective is fading to some extent however and giving way to a third perspective.

The Post Modern to the question of humanities place in the universe proposes that humanity is not "apart from" the universe but rather is "part of" the universe. In this capacity humanity plays an integral role in the universe. This perspective is reflected in the new ecological and environmental consciousness, which is at the heart of Deep Ecology Ethics. As part of the universe, we are to recognize that to abuse the universe and the created order is not only to damage the cosmos, but also to damage or adversely affect ourselves as part of that created order.

Ethics: Utilitarianism

In its simplest definition utilitarianism argues that the ethical action, which should be taken in a particular social moral context, is to take that action which will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. Two individuals are important for the theory of utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Bentham was a British philosopher of ethics and political theory. He was born in London, and entered Queens College, Oxford at the age of 12 and after graduation entered Lincoln's Inn to study law. He was admitted to the bar in 1767 but never practice. He spent his life writing, advocating changes along utilitarian lines of the whole legal system, especially in the area of criminal law. He argued that people should do what produces pleasure.

Bentham proposed that the only good that exists is pleasure while the only evil that exists is pain. He considered a number of elements in calculating pleasure. For example, he proposed that, in the calculation of pleasure, consideration should be given to things such as intensity, duration, certainty, quickness, how many other pleasures are produced, freedom from pain and the number of people affected. In addition he argued that every individual's happiness regardless of how mundane or qualitatively inferior should be given equal weight. This is true, according to Bentham, since democracy allows standard to fall to the lowest common denominator.

Objections to Bentham:

1) It is not true that pleasure and pain dictate all human behavior.
2) How does one make hedonistic calculations? Is there a standard that all can agree upon?
3) What about the qualities of pleasures?
4) The calculation surely must not be aimed at the greatest absolute happiness, but the greatest average happiness. Otherwise, the minority's rights and happiness or pleasure might be ignored.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Mill was a British empiricist philosopher and utilitarian social reformer. He was greatly influenced by the work of Jeremy Bentham and he advocated social reformed based upon the utilitarianism of Bentham. Mill however argued that in the consideration and calculation of pleasure one should not only consider the quantity of pleasure, but also the quality of pleasure since some pleasures are more preferable than others. While lower pleasures are more immediate and intense in many instances these are not as valuable as the higher pleasures. The quality of pleasures is determined y those who are familiar with both and who prefer one to the other, regardless of any feeling of moral obligation. What makes one pleasure more desirable is that it is in fact more desired by "competent judges of cultivation". Mill argued based upon this conclusion that "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

Objections to Mill

1) The theory sounds elitist.
2) If some pleasures should not be encouraged not all pleasures are therefore good.
3) If some pleasures re more valuable than others, there must be a criterion for such a determination, which is pleasurable only indirectly.

Ethics: Hedonism

"Psychological Hedonism" argues that every human action is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure. "Ethical Hedonism" or "Moral Hedonism" argues that every human action ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure. From these definitions it is notable that "moral hedonism" acknowledges that it is possible that an individual not be motivated by pleasure, but also argues that it is unwise to be motivated by anything other than pleasure. Epicurus is the founder of Epicureanism.

Epicurus (341-271 B.C.) argued that an individual ought to do the good, and the good is that which is pleasurable. Some pleasures result from satisfying one's natural desires, some of which are necessary such as the desire for food and sleep. Some pleasures are unnecessary and often have pains associated with them, such as the desire for sex. Still other pleasures result from satisfying vain desires and these desires are not always easily satisfied and may also have pain associated with them.

According to Epicurus, the individual should pursue those things, which are pleasurable without also having pains associated with. Consequently, we should try to develop values for beauty, prudence, honor, justice, courage, and honesty rather than the so-called "epicurean" sensualist because such sensualism is always mixed with pains. One's pleasure always should be moderated and real pleasure is the absence of pain.

Ancient Greek Morality

For most Greeks the question, "Why be moral?" is at the heart of morality. According to Greek morality, the individual should be moral because of the good it yields. With Socrates and Plato however, the focus of the question regarding, 'What is moral?" is shifted. According to Socratic and Platonic ethics if we know what is good that will be enough to indicate why we should act morally.

• Thrasymachus (427 B.C.): He was a Greek sophist and is known mainly as a character in Book I of Plato's "Republic." Thrasymachus traveled and taught extensively throughout the Greek world and was well known in Athens as a teacher and as an author or treatises on rhetoric. According to him, morality encompasses the rules or conventions imposed on others by those in power for their own benefit. Bang immoral is advantageous to me. That is, being immoral does not necessarily make one unhappy.

• Glaucon and Adeimantus: According to these writers being moral is beneficial to the person who is being moral. But if I could be immoral without suffering, I would be a fool not to be immoral (See Gyges ring). Even giving the appearance of morality is better than actually not acting morally.

• Socrates and Plato: The good consequences of being moral are not what makes actions good; rather, actions have good consequences because them are good in themselves and such actions ought to be done for that reason alone. Immorality is due to one's ignorance of the good.

For Plato, the good is defined in terms of balancing elements of the soul. As with society, the soul has three parts: the ruling part, the enforcement part and the productive part.

• The ruling part (rulers are like the soul's reasoning abilities) that knows the truth or essence of what it means to exist in harmony. The virtue of this group is wisdom.

• The enforcement part of the soul is our spirit, drive, or commitment. In society this is represented by the guardians (police, soldiers) that implement philosophical principles, and their virtue is courage.

• The productive part or the gets things done part of the soul (appetite, lusts, and irrational desires) has its parallel in the workers and artisans in society whose virtue is moderation.

Justice occurs when the parts of the soul are in ma=harmony and this means that we act in accord with human reason, doing what is appropriate given our place in society. This is virtue or "arête". For Plato we should be moral because to do so is to be harmoniously integrated with oneself.

Metaethics

Metaethics may be understood as “the study of concepts, methods of justification and ontological assumptions in the field of ethics proper.” (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, “Ethics”, 287-88)

The field of metaethics has a connection to epistemological concerns (how can we know the right thing to do?) and also has a connection to metaphysical interpretations such as what is the nature or character of that which is right or wrong (what is the nature of reality and how does that impact one’s behavior?)

The field of metaethics from the epistemological perspective contains three distinctive perspectives regarding the epistemological dimension of the ethical task. These are naturalism, cognitivism (rationalism) and non-cognitivism.

Naturalism carries out the task of ethical contemplation and action with the under the direction of the natural sciences.

Non-cognitivism addresses ethical matters in a qualified sense, advancing the idea that ethical statements are not really meaningful at all. Rather, ethical statements are “non cognitivist” in nature, cannot be verified as right or wrong, and are ultimately only emotive utterances of approval or disapproval.

Cognitivism or the rationalist approach, on the other hand, addresses ethical concerns on an a priori basis. According to this view, issues of right and wrong, moral and immoral are discerned through the use of rationality without any regard for empirical considerations or sensory input.

The field of metaethics from the metaphysical perspective focuses upon the question of objectivity. Two perspectives dominate this metaphysical approach concerning the question of ethical objectivity.

The first metaphysical perspective is ethical realism. According to this approach, ethical values, standards, and realities have their basis in objective realities and are therefore, ultimately universalizable. This approach is best characterized in the Platonic idea of the world of Forms.

The second metaphysical perspective is ethical subjectivism which advocates that ethical statements and concerns are in reality subjective and in some extreme instances reflect no more than the projections of one’s own mood, disposition, or emotion onto a given context. This approach is best reflected in the ethical skepticism of David Hume and ethical existentialism of Jean Paul Satre.

Deontological and Teleological Ethics

Deontological Ethics

Deontological Ethics is also known as non-Consequentialist ethics. Deontological ethics consist of a variety of ethical theories, which focus upon the duty, which one has, for instance, to a particular moral code. Examples of deontological ethics include such theories as Divine Command theory, Kantian formalism or the Categorical Imperative and Christian ethics in general. Deontological ethics argues that by doing our duty we do what is value. Divine command theory, for example, says that something is good for no other reason than God commands it. Kantian ethical theory focus's upon the duty one has to keep what Kant understood to be a universal moral command, known as the Categorical Imperative. Deontological ethics has as its beginning the work of Plato with his emphasis upon the universal standard of right and wrong which exists in the world of Forms or Ideas.


Teleological Ethics

Teleological ethics is also known as Consequentialist ethics. Teleological ethics consists of a variety of ethical theories which focus upon outcome or consequences as determinative of which course of ethical action one should take. Teleological or Consequentialist theories include such ethical theories as egoism, hedonism and utilitarianism. These ethical theories advance the idea that the first task of ethics is to determine that which has value and defines the good and then to indicate how we are obligated to do what is valuable. Before we know why we should do good, we first have to determine what the good is. In order to determine what the good actually we must focus upon the consequences or outcomes of our various ethical actions. Teleological ethics does not understand actions themselves to be inherently good or bad, but rather are determined to be appropriate by the consequences, which they produce. Teleological ethics has as its beginning the work of Aristotle with his rejection of the Platonic world of Forms or Ideas and his this worldly emphasis upon the moral life as shaped by the outcome, goal, or consequences of one's actions.

The Ethical "is", "ought" and "why"

Many ethicists divide the study of ethics in general into three areas. These areas include empirical ethics, normative ethics, and analytical ethics.

Empirical Ethics

Empirical Ethics refers simply to the empirical observation of ethical behavior. Sometimes this area of ethics is also referred to as descriptive ethics since it is aimed at describing the ethical behavior of a particular individual or people group. The objective of this particular approach to ethics is to explain ethical behavior. In addition, empirical ethics also examines the various processes by which individuals make ethical decisions.

Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is probably that area of ethical consideration with which we are most familiar. The focus of normative ethics is the establishing of a standard of form by which ethical behavior is to be conducted. Normative ethics is concerned with establishing a standard or a norm by which individuals are to conduct their lives. Normative ethics establishes behavior that an individual is to exhibit, as well as the type of behavior which is prohibited by the individual. Typically, normative ethics is characterized by words such as "ought" or "should" since normative ethics focuses upon how an individual or people group "ought" or "should" live their lives.

Analytical Ethics

Analytical ethics has as its focus the idea of "analysis." Analytical ethics is aimed at "taking apart" or "looking at the varied pieces of something". Therefore, analytical ethics dissects the ethical dimension of life and explores the nature of morality itself. Analytical ethicists focus upon questions such as: What is the distinction between moral and nonmoral? What do words such as "right," "good," and "ought," mean? What are we asserting when we say a person is "free" or "responsible"? Analytical ethics seems to be concerned with the question of "Why" a particular behavior is moral or immoral, good or bad, reprehensible or desirable.

Goodness and the Question of Ends

Generally, there have been two approaches to the ethical question of, "What end ought we pursue in life?" Two additional questions emerge from this initial question are stand as proposed answers to the issue of where one can find the summum bonum of life.

First, "What are the elements of the good life?" and second "What type of things are good in and of themselves?"

Aristotle and The Human Well Being Approach

The first question, "What are the elements of the good life?" assumes that each individual is inclined to the pursuit of the "good life" or the summum bonum of life. This particular question concerning the good life contains a basic assumption about human nature. The question presupposes that within each human being there is an intrinsic desire or yearning, which will lead to meaning and significance in life whereas the intrinsic value approach discussed next makes no such assumption concerning human nature.

The human well-being approach to the question of meaning and purpose in life originated in ancient Greek ethics. The Greek term used in description of this life purpose was eudaimonia. The word has sometimes been translated "happiness" but on other occasions the term has been rendered as "flourishing" in order to communicate the idea of human fulfillment as a result of the discovering the source of the good life.

The diverse translations of the one term reflect two different understandings of the "good life" contained within this approach. The translation of the term as "happiness" emphasizes the idea of feeling good or pleasure as the essence of fulfillment in life. This fulfillment approach, which centers upon the meaning of the term eudaimonia, finds its expression in teleological ethics or an ethical approach focused upon goals, objective or outcome. The classical advocate of the teleological approach is Aristotle.

Plato and The Intrinsic Value Approach

The second question asks, "What types of things are good and of themselves?" This second approach to the primary question, "What end ought we pursue in life?" makes no assumption regarding human nature. Rather the emphasis of this approach concerning the ultimate goal of one's life is focused upon the supposed "goodness" which resides in a particular commitment, code, activity, or thing. This approach has sometimes been called the "theory of intrinsic value." (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd Edition, "Ethics", 285)

The intrinsic value approach has its roots in the Platonic Idea of the World of Forms. The approach addresses the question of ethics from the perspective of those things, which are inherently good things to commit oneself to. This might include the idea things such a pleasure, knowledge, virtue, friendship, beauty, harmony and an endless possibility of other pursuits. The intrinsic value approach to the ethical question of what an individual should pursue in life finds its expression in deontological ethics or an ethics of duty. If certain things are intrinsically good, then the individual out of a sense of duty perhaps called for within the context of a particular moral code has an obligation to pursue those things. This stands in contradistinction to the previously discussed teleological approach. The classical advocate of the deontological approach is Plato.

The significance of the terms deontological and teleological will be addressed in subsequent material.

What is "ethics"?

The study of "Ethics" is one of the many subsections of Philosophy such as Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion, and Aesthetics. Before considering various ethical theories after which I will look at a number of theories regarded as "Anti-ethics" approaches, it is important to consider what all the study of ethics entails.

Ethics and Morality

Ethics may be defined as "the study of morality" and the word "ethics" is commonly used interchangeably with the term "morality." (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, "Ethics", 284) Though admittedly overly simplistic, this writer makes a number of distinctions between the two however.

First, it seems that the term "ethics" frequently though not always is used in a more general sense than is the term "morals." When the term "ethics" is employed in much conversation, it is frequently used to speak of the discipline in general or the ethics of a particular people group for instance. This stands in contradistinction to the use of the term "morals" which is frequently, though not always, used to speak of the morality of a particular person. It is in this sense that it at least seems that when we think of "ethics" we have in mind a more general idea concerning standards of right and wrong whereas when we use the term "morals" we are speaking on a more personal or individualistic level.

Another important distinction which this writer makes between the terms "ethics" and "morals" lies in my own conclusion that in some fashion, when we use the term "ethics" we are speaking of how things "ought" to be, in contradistinction to use of the term "morals" which seems to speak of how things "are." The typical distinction between these terms lies in the conclusion that to speak of "ethics" is to speak of prescriptive ethics, whereas to speak of "morals" is to speak of descriptive ethics. The term "ethics" speaks of the ethical ideal that we are pursuing while the term "morals" speaks of the actuality moral status of the present moment or decision.

As a subsection of Philosophy, ethics is also known as "moral philosophy." The study of ethics is further broken down into subsequent topics such as deontological ethics, teleological ethics, Cognitivist ethics, non-Cognitivist ethics, metaethics and applied ethics for example.

Epistemology: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Immanuel Kant was a highly significant transitional figure between the 18th and 19th centuries. Up until this time the debate between the Continental rationalists and the British empiricists had continued to broil. However, the debate between the rationalists and empiricists prompted Immanuel Kant to highlight the differences between the kinds of statements, judgments, or propositions and to propose a solution to the epistemological conclusions of the rationalists and empiricists. For Kant the distinctions between analytic and synthetic and a priori and a posteriori judgments must be kept separate. Kant proposes four types of propositions:

1) Analytical: These are statements in which the predicate is part of the subject. An example of an analytical statement is, "A bachelor is an unmarried man." By definition a "bachelor" is an unmarried man.

2) Synthetic: These are statements, which are learned by experience. An example of a synthetic statement is, "Birds are yellow." By definition, a "bird" is not yellow but that some are yellow is learned from experience.

3) A posterior statements: Again, these are statements, which are learned by experience. A posteriori statements are also synthetic statements.

4) A priori statements: Again, these are statements, which one knows before experience and by definition. A priori statements are also analytic statements.

All a posteriori statements are synthetic judgments.

All synthetic statements are not a posteriori judgments.

In mathematical and geometrical judgments, the predicate is not contained in the subject. For example the concept of 12 is not contained either in 7, 5, + or =. Neither is the predicate contained in the combination of these elements.

Such propositions are universal and necessary and are therefore a priori even though they could not have been known from experience. They would therefore synthetic a priori judgments though this seems contradictory.

Kant used this reality as a basis for his conclusions of the work of the rationalists and empiricists regarding the nature of knowledge. According to Kant epistemology is both rationalistic and empiricistic. The mind takes ideas and interprets them in light of categories such as space, time, quantity, qualities, relationships, and modality. All of these categories are subject to and are built into the mind.

All rational beings think of the world in terms of space, time and categories such as cause and effect, substance, unity, plurality, necessity, possibility, and reality. We think of things in this manner not because that is actually the way the world is but because that is the way our minds order experience.

Sense data is interpreted by these innate categories in the mind. In other words, the mind takes the sensory data and interprets it through these innate categorical grids. In short, reason provides the structure or form of what we know and the senses provide the content of what we know. In another sense, Kant is saying that sensory experience constitutes the "software" of what we know and reason provides the "hardware" by which the "software" is interpreted and stored.

Knowledge is possible not because it is about the way things actually are, but because it is about how things appear to be.

Epistemology: Empiricism - Logical Positivism

Logical Positivism emerged in the early 1920's. The movement is an outgrowth of a radical version of British Empiricism. Logical Positivism was built around the principle of verification in which adherents argued that the only meaningful statements of truth are those, which are empirically verifiable. According to the Logical Positivists, a statement is meaningful if it meets at least one of two criteria:

1) It is based on sense data or experience (empirical observation).

2) It is a "linguistic convention" or "tautology" meaning that it is a truth the meaning of which is determined by definition.

Logical Positivism was characterized by the following elements: the verifiability criterion, necessary truth and reductionism.

1) The verifiability criterion of meaning

According to the Logical Positivists, statements about the world must have their source in some reality in the world and, in turn, must therefore be empirically verifiable. Discussion concerning this principle centered upon the significance of the word "verify." On the one hand, extreme verificationism, argued that in order for an individual to make the statement, "There is a table in front of me" there must be empirical evidence of the actual reality of such a statement. However, extreme verificationism was subject to doubt due to the reality that certain apparent truths simply are not verifiable.

Consequently, some verificationists opted for a modified verificationism, which focused not upon certitude but upon probability or likelihood of a propositions being true. Two issues emerge from this modified version of verificationism. On the one hand, modified verificationism was more difficult to disprove than extreme verificationism. On the other hand, however, critics argue that modified verificationism likely fails to meet the original goal of the Logical Positivists which was to rule out truth statements that are, at least in the view of the Positivists, nonsensical.

2) Necessary Truth

Logical Positivism also argued that all truth might be placed in two categories. On the one hand, there are meaningful statements which are necessary truths (a priori analytic statements) and, on the other hand, there are meaningful statements, which are contingent truths (a posteriori synthetic statements).

"All bachelor's are unmarried" is an example of a necessary apriori analytic statement, also known as a tautology. These types of statements tell us nothing about the world and are either true or false based upon some fact about the rules of language. These were necessary truths and according to the Logical Positivists are to be reduced to tautologies. However, as will be seen below, this is problematic for the Logical Positivist.

Logical Positivism experienced significant challenge at the point of necessary truth as well. In short, it is difficult if not impossible in some instances to reduce necessary truth to formal tautologies. For example consider the following frequently used examples of these tautologies:

a) Everything that is blue all over is not red all over.
b) All equilateral triangles are equiangular triangular.
c) No proposition is both true and false.

3) Reductionism

Sense data are themselves neither mental nor physical. The mental-physical distinction consists simply in our organization or arrangement of predicates, for example size, shape, etc. Positivism argues that others minds and even one's own mind are logical constructs since they are not sense nor are they composed of sensory data. The self, in short, is nothing more than a bundle of perceptions and there is no continuous substantial self and theoretical entities such as atoms and average housewives for example, exist only in terms of theories for explanatory and predictive purposes. This is not the first occurrence of such reductionism in epistemology. Locked dropped the idea of innate ideas; Berkeley dropped Berkeley's/Locke's recognition of material substances and causality; the Positivists drop Hume's belief in things in favor of sense data or "phenomena."

Rationalism and Empiricism: Overview

Rationalists claim that real knowledge about self, God, the world, is possible le only if it is certain or based on something that is certain. Since sense experience cannot guarantee certainty, it cannot be the basis for knowledge. Only reason can reveal propositions that are indubitable or that cannot be doubted, so only reason can be trusted to provide knowledge as opposed to mere beliefs.

The problem with relying on reason alone, though, is that a priori propositions or propositions whose truth or falsity is known prior to and impendent of any sense experience, do not provide any useful information about the world. To know, for example, that bachelors are unmarried, that unicorns have horns, or that triangles have three sides, does not tell us whether there are such things in the world as bachelors, unicorns, or triangles. For that information, we have to rely on experience. But if experience is ruled out by rationalists as unjustified bases for knowledge, then it seems that we will never be able to know anything about the world.

Descartes attempted to get around this problem by saying that we know that we exist and that there is some information about the world that is not based on sensory experience. We also know according to Descartes that God exists and that God does not deceive us when we limit our beliefs about the world to clear and distinct ideas. So we can know things about the world insofar as it is clearly and distinctly organizable. That last feature means that, if we think about things in the world not in terms of what we learn from relying on our senses, for example that grass is green, or that it is cold outside, but only in terms of how things have to be, that in order to be grass, a plant has to have certain characteristics, we will then be able to say that we know something about them. Otherwise, we have to admit that we have beliefs about things not knowledge.

Empiricists disagree with this conclusion however. For empiricists, fact about the world are known a posteriori or they depend on experience for their truth of falsity. For empiricists also facts are publicly verifiable and exhibit enough order that they can be the gasis for generalizations and predictions. Admittedly experience does not provide the absolute certainty that rationalists require for saying that we know something. But even if our knowledge is only probable, at lest it is of some use rather than being simply about how we under definitions.

Common Sense Realism and Representative Realism

According to Locke, since we know only our ideas, it is important to understand them well. Some ideas represent things in the world truly or exactly as those things are apart from how we perceive them. Examples of this according to Locke would be an objects solidity, extension, figure, motion, and number. These are the primary qualities of an object. Other ideas occur in our minds as a result of their being caused by primary qualities. Examples of this would be the figure or motion or insensible particles such as atoms or molecules. These ideas are what Locked called secondary qualities. The secondary qualities do not represent thing in the world as they are. They only appear to us in that way (e.g. colors, sounds). As long as we limit claims about the world to ideas of primary qualities we can rely on our experience for knowledge.

Representative Realism is a modification of Common Sense Realism which is a view that assumes that there is a world of physical objects such as houses, trees, cars, goldfish, teaspoons, footballs, human bodies, philosophy books, tables, chairs, and so on. These physical objects continue to exist whether or not they are perceived. In addition, these objects are also assumed to actually be as they appear to us, for example goldfish are truly gold, footballs are spherical. Common Sense Realism assumes that our sensory organs are generally reliable and that they give us a realistic sense of the external world.

Representative Realism is called "representative" because it suggests that all perception is a result of awareness of inner representations of the external world. When I see s seagull I do not see it directly in the way that common sense realism suggests. I have no direct sensory contact with the bird. Rather, what I am aware of is a mental representation, something like an inner picture, of the sea gull. My visual experience is not directly of the seagull, though it is caused by it, but rather it is experience of the representation of the seagull my senses produce.