Important ethical terms (Contemporary Moral Problems, Madsen).

Autonomy. The capacity to be self-governing, that is, the ability to determine your own destiny by making rational informed choices. When Kant says that you should never treat others only as means but always also as ends in themselves, he means, among other things, that you should respect the autonomy of other people. (see “deontology” and “ Categorical imperative”). Altruism. The idea that people are capable of unselfish behavior, even to the point where you lay down your life in order to help somebody else. If there are genuinely altruistic acts, this would seem to refute the idea that human beings always act out of self-interest (see egoism). Categorical Imperative. Imperatives are moral commands that are either hypothetical (of the form “if you want such and such then you should do xyz) or categorical (you should always act in such and such way). Kant’s supreme moral principle or Categorical Imperative has two main formulations. 1) The formula of universal law: I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become universal law 9 (see Universalization). 2) The formula of humanity: So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means. Consequentialism. Ethical theory that judges the rightness or wrongness of actions by the outcome or consequences of the actions (see cost-benefit analysis, utilitarianism). Cost-benefit analysis. A method to determine which course of action maximizes net benefits over costs. The course of action with more benefits relative to costs is the course of action you should pursue. For a consequentialist/utilitarian who adheres to the “greatest happiness for the greatest number” principle this is also the morally right thing to do. In order to calculate benefits relative to costs you need to be able to quantify benefits and costs. This can be problematic (see, Quality/quantity, utilitarianism). Deontological ethics. Ethical theory that determines moral conduct based on duties, rules and intentions as opposed to the consequences of actions. Kant believed that in order to determine the moral worth of an action you had to look at the general intention behind the action or the maxim or general rule that governs the action. Kant thought that the supreme principle you should base your actions on was the categorical imperative. A morally good action is an action that is performed out of respect for the categorical imperative or with the intention of doing your duty, that is, to act in accordance with the imperative (see Categorical Imperative). Deterrence. In discussions about capital punishment one of the key issues is whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect on potential murderers. In other words, does the fear of the death penalty restrain some people from committing murder? The concept of deterrence is also relevant for the realist position concerning international relations. Realists will sometimes argue that the heads of state should only be concerned with protecting the interests of their respective nations. The idea is that the best way to ensure peaceful coexistence is to prepare for war. If you are prepared for war you will deter potential aggressors. The balance of terror during the cold war supposedly worked that way: neither of the super powers were willing to go to war because a war would be so destructive that nobody could win it. So both powers were deterred from attacking each other. Divine Command theory. The conviction that something is right or good simply because God has commanded it. Sometimes this view is presented in connection with the further claim, that without a divine law-giver there is no objective sense of right and wrong (see dogmatism, objectivism). Dogmatism. The refusal to accept criticism of your point of view or to consider the merits of alternative points of view. A common form of dogmatism is religious fundamentalism, where certain articles of faith are considered to be absolutely true and outside the scope of critical reason. Egoism. The claim that, as a matter of fact, people always act out of egotistical motives (psychological egoism), or the ethical theory that people always should act out of self-interest. The two views are independent of each other, but they often go together. Thomas Hobbes, for example, both held that humans are egotistical by nature and that you can motivate moral conduct by appealing to self-interest. Ethical dilemma. We are often forced to examine our ethical beliefs when we encounter ethical dilemmas. Dilemmas arise when one ethical principle pulls us in one direction while another equally powerful principle pulls us in the opposite direction. For example, you might be in favor of abortion because you believe that autonomy is extremely important, on the other hand you might also believe in the sanctity of life, hence you face a dilemma about the moral status of abortion. Ethics. Ethics is concerned with standards for what’s right and wrong, and what values are conducive to a good life or a good society. In this sense ethics is different from other considerations about standards for right behavior such as manners, the law, customs, and rules of prudence. Furthermore, ethical theory is typically concerned about finding systematic connections between our moral values and rules. Hedonism. The consequentialist position that you should always choose the course of action that maximizes pleasure over pain (see, quality/quantity). Just war theory. Proponents of just war theory claim that moral consideration are relevant both to the reasons for entering into a war (jus ad bellum) and for the ways you can fight the war (jus in bellum). The conditions under which you can justly enter into a war include: just cause, proper authority, right intention, proportionality, likelihood of success, last resort. The two main principles that apply to the conduct in war are: proportionality and discrimination. Moral code. The set of moral rules that a given society as a matter of fact subscribes to, or an optimal moral code, i.e., the set of rules a given society should adhere to in order to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number in that society. The first sense is descriptive, the second is normative. Norms. Standards or rules that regulate our behavior with respect to others. Ethical norms are different from other norms in the sense that it’s hard to imagine any civil society without rules of conduct that tell us how we should treat others and how we can expect others to treat us. Hobbes’ “state of nature” is an example of a world without any moral rules. Objectivism. The idea that ethical rules are based on some fact about the world, God, or human nature that is independent of human agreements and conventions. People then differ about what these facts are and how we can come to know them. Some people claim they are revealed in holy scripture, others that socio-biological science can discover them, some believe that human reason can uncover them. Pacifism The belief that wars cannot be morally justified. Sometimes it is argued that since we know innocents will always die in wars, and since murder is always wrong, then war is always wrong. Or, it is argued that what can be achieved by waging war is not worth the death and destruction war causes. Finally pacifists argue that there are peaceful means of resolving conflicts. Quality/ Quantity. If you believe in consequentialist ethics combined with a hedonistic conception of what well-being is, then the course of action that maximizes pleasure over pain is the right thing to do. However, how do you determine what brings the most net pleasure over pain? Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of utilitarianism, invented a “felicity calculus” in order to quantify pleasure. He thought pleasure could be measured using 7 different categories: 1. Intensity The intensity of the pleasure. 2. Duration How long the pleasure lasts. 3. Certainty The likelihood that the pleasure will occur. 4. Proximity How soon the pleasure will occur? 5. Fecundicity Will this pleasure produce other pleasures? 6. Purity Is the pleasure mixed with pain? 7. Extent The number of people that will experience the pleasure. Other utilitarians (John Stuart Mill for one) have argued that you shouldn’t just take the quantity of pleasure into account, but also need to take the quality of the pleasure into account, in other words, some pleasures are better than others. Sometimes this view is captured in the saying, “It’s better to be Socrates unhappy that to be a happy pig”. The idea is that even if Socrates is unhappy there is a leap in the sophistication and quality of human experiences compared to the primitive pleasures of being a well satisfied pig. Realism. In the context of international politics and armed conflicts the realist position is that moral considerations are beside the point. In particular, moral issues are irrelevant to the considerations that determine if you should engage in war and how you should fight the war once it has started. One reason realists believe moral rules don’t apply to war is that, as opposed to civil society where law and order is enforced by the state, there is no corresponding authority that can enforce moral rules in the international society, hence moral rules become meaningless. Essentially international society is comparable to a Hobbsian state of nature, and the first priority of any sovereign state is to secure its own survival. Relativism. The position that all moral values and rules are relative to culture and society. As a consequence some things that are permissible within one culture can be prohibited within a different culture. Since nobody has a “God’s eye view” that can establish values that are independent of cultural context, it’s impossible to argue that one set of cultural values is objectively better than a different set. An extreme form of relativism is subjectivism. The view that all values are relative to each individual person and are based on personal preferences. The radical consequence is that it’s futile to discuss any moral point of view, because all values are equally good (or bad, as the case might be). Most people reject this type of nihilism about morality because it seems that in our conduct we do agree on fundamental moral values and discriminate between good and bad. An argument against relativism is that certain moral rules apply to all human beings because we all share the same human nature regardless of the kind of society we live in. Retributivism. The idea that it’s our moral duty to punish those who do wrong according to the severity of their crime. Only in this way is justice served. Proponents of capital punishment argue that in the case of deliberate murder the only punishment that fits the crime is the death penalty. A murderer forfeits the right to life and deserves to die. Sometimes proponents of capital punishment seek to bolster their position by arguing that many societies have adhered to a version of the lex talionis (the “eye for an eye” principle known from the Old Testament). Retributive justice is concerned with what is deserved whereas distributive justice is also concerned with fairness and equality. Social contract. The mutual agreement between free individuals to honor certain laws and moral principles in order to live in a well-ordered society where social interaction and cooperation for mutual benefit can take place. By entering into the agreement you give up certain freedoms to the state but gain security and prosperity in return. State of nature. According to Thomas Hobbes human being are originally in a “state of nature”. In the state of nature everybody fends for themselves, your first priority is survival and to protect what’s yours. In such as a state you have no reason to trust anybody and the kind of cooperative ventures that are characteristic of civilized society are impossible; life is “nasty, brutish, and short”. In this situation people realize that it is in their best self- interest to enter into a mutual agreement with their fellow men to abide by certain laws and moral rules. Furthermore they agree to give the state supreme power to enforce the rules. So, out of rational self-interest people enter into a social contract with each other. This contract is the basis of civilized society. Terrorism. Terrorism can be defined as the use of violence for political purposes. What differentiates terrorism from other uses of force for political purposes is that terrorists intentionally target innocent victims; they strike in an unpredictable and random fashion calculated to spread fear and panic in a given population . Universalization. The fundamental principle that the moral point of view entails a willingness to universalize moral standards. In other words, if something is morally right for me at this time, then it should also be right for everybody else at all other times. If, for example, I believe it’s wrong to tell lies, then it’s always wrong for anybody (including myself) to tell lies. This idea seems to be implicit in many moral principles. The “golden rule” (treat others the way you want them to treat you) is one such example. Kant made this principle explicit in one of his versions of the categorical imperative. For Kant it doesn’t make sense to make promises unless you also hold that everybody making a promise is obligated to keep it. If you made promises with the understanding that people could break their promises whenever it was convenient, then the act of promising would become meaningless. Utilitarianism. Utilitarians argue that there is one fundamental principle that all other moral principles are based on. Sometimes this principle is captured in the slogan “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” Another way of expressing the idea is that one should always choose the course of action that will maximize well-being and happiness over misery and unhappiness over any of the alternative courses of action. This is envisioned as a democratic principle in the sense that it’s the total amount of happiness in society in general that the utilitarians have in mind, and, furthermore, that no man’s happiness should count for more than any other man’s. A distinction is made between act-utilitarians and rule-utiliterians. Act- utilitarians look at the outcome of each individual action whereas rule- utilitarians admit that there might be a set of more general rules you should follow in order to maximize happiness. For example I might be able to maximize happiness in a certain situation by stealing something, however, more overall happiness might be obtained if we as a society respect the rule that you shouldn’t steal. Therefore, I should respect the rule and refrain from stealing despite the immediate net benefits that would justify stealing in this instance. The question for the rule-utilitarian becomes how to find the set of moral rules that will secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Value. Moral values, whether you believe they are objective or determined by human agreements, are different from mere personal preferences. Typically your personal preferences do not entail anything about how you should treat others and how you expect them to treat you, but moral values do. Therefore your personal preferences have few direct implications for the kind of society we want to live in (who cares if you prefer country living to city living) but moral values do (it makes a difference whether you believe all men are created equal or you don’t). Sometimes this important distinction is blurred when people talk about “personal values”. If you believe in a set of moral principles, then these moral values are not just personal, because you believe they apply to other people as well. For example, it’s not just that you believe it’s wrong to kill, you believe that it’s wrong for everybody, and hence, that everybody ought to share this belief.