Introducing Ethics

Introducing Ethics

Paperback(Third Edition)

$12.95 View All Available Formats & Editions

Overview

What are the acceptable limits of scientific investigation and genetic engineering, the rights and wrongs of animal rights, euthanasia and civil disobedience? This book confronts these dilemmas, tracing arguments of moral thinkers, including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and brings us up to date with postmodern critics.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781840465808
Publisher: Icon Books, Ltd. UK
Publication date: 12/28/2000
Series: Introducing
Edition description: Third Edition
Pages: 176
Product dimensions: 5.60(w) x 8.41(h) x 0.44(d)

Read an Excerpt



Chapter One


Moral Questions


Everyone is interested in ethics. We all have our own ideas about what is right and what is wrong and how we can tell the difference. Philosophers and bishops discuss moral "mazes" on the radio. People no longer behave as they should.


THE COUNTRY IS IN
A STATE OF MORAL
DECLINE AND THERE
IS NO RESPECT FOR
AUTHORITY ANY MORE!


WE MUST GET
"BACK TO BASICS!"


WE NEED "MORAL
MISSION STATEMENTS!"


POSTMODERN RELATIVISM
HAS LED US INTO A
NIGHTMARE OF
UNCERTAINTY AND
MORAL CHAOS!


So we're told. But there have always been "moral panics". Plato thought 4th century B.C. Athens was doomed because of the wicked ethical scepticism of the Sophist philosophers and the credulity of his fellow citizens.


Social Beings


We are all products of particular societies. We do not "make ourselves". We owe much of what we consider to be our "identity" and "personal opinions" to the community in which we live. This made perfect sense to Aristotle. For Aristotle, the primary function of the state was to enable collectivist human beings to have philosophical discussions and eventually agree on a shared code of ethics.


MAN IS BY NATURE
A POLITICAL ANIMAL.
IT IS IN HIS NATURE
TO LIVE IN A STATE.


But as soon as we are formed, most of us start to question the society that has made us, and doso in a way that seems unique to us. Socrates stressed that it was in fact our duty.


ASK QUESTIONS
ABOUT ACCEPTED
MORAL OPINIONS,
AND NEVER STOP
DOING SO.


The State may decide what is legally right and wrong, but the law and morality are not the same thing.


Communitarians or Individualists?


Ethics is complicated because our morality is an odd mixture of received tradition and personal opinion.


SOME PHILOSOPHERS HAVE
STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE COMMUNITY AND
SEE INDIVIDUAL ETHICS AS
DERIVATIVE.


OTHERS WILL STRESS THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE AUTONOMOUS
INDIVIDUAL AND CLAIM THAT
SOCIETY IS MERELY A CONVENIENT
ARRANGEMENT WHICH MUST BE
SUBSERVIENT TO THE GOALS AND
AMBITIONS OF INDIVIDUALS.


Both individualist and communitarian philosophers are reluctant to explain away ethics as no more than "club rules" agreed upon and formalized by members. Both want to legitimize either communal ethics or the need for an individual morality by appealing to some kind of "neutral" set of ideals. Much of this book is about these different attempts to provide a foundation for ethics.


Setting the Stage


Ten Central Questions


Let's begin, as philosophers do, by asking some odd and awkward questions. These questions are important, even if clear and positive answers to them are few. Are there any differences between moral laws and society's laws? If there are, why is this?


What are human beings really like: selfish and greedy or generous and kind?


Are some people "better" at morality than others, or is everyone equally capable of being good?


Are there good ways of teaching children to behave morally?


Does anyone have the right to tell anyone else what goodness and wickedness are?


Are there certain kinds of acts (like torturing children) that are always wrong? If so, what are they?


What do you think is the best answer to the question,
"Why should I be a good person?"


Is ethics a special kind of knowledge? If so, what sort of knowledge is it and how do we get hold of it?


Is morality about obeying a set of rules or is it about thinking carefully about consequences?


When people say "I know murder is wrong", do they know it is wrong or just believe it very strongly?


The Social Origins of Belief Systems


It seems very unlikely that any society has ever existed in which individual members have thought the murder of others to be acceptable. Although the odd serial killer does occasionally surface in any society, most of us think of one as an exceptional aberration, or even as "non-human".


There have always been rules about when men may kill other men — usually outsiders as opposed to insiders.


SO KILLING MISSIONARIES
MAY BE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE....


... BUT NOT FATHERS-IN-LAW FROM
NEIGHBOURING TRIBES!


Such moral understandings are often codified and regulated by religious and legal taboos of various kinds. Human beings seem reluctant to accept that morality is something invented by themselves and so tend to legitimize moral rules by mythologizing their origins: "The Great White Parrot says stealing is wrong". The story of ethics is to some extent a description of attempts like these to legitimize morality.


Morality and Religion


Most people living in Western Christian societies would say that they base their ethical beliefs and behaviour on the ten negative commandments, rather inconveniently carved on stone tablets handed to Moses by God. (Of the ten, only about six are actually ethical, rather than concerned with religious observance and ritual.)


MOST PEOPLE THINK OF
ETHICS IN THIS WAY ...
... AS A SERIES OF
RULES THAT YOU TRY
TO KEEP TO MOST OF
THE TIME.


IF YOU CAN'T REMEMBER
ALL TEN RULES, IT'S POSSIBLE
TO LIVE THE MORAL LIFE BY
STICKING TO ONE GOLDEN
RULE —


— ALWAYS TREAT OTHERS
AS YOU WOULD LIKE THEM
TO TREAT YOU.


This "reciprocity rule" has a long track record and is found in many different religions worldwide. It is a bit like prudent insurance — a sensible way of getting along in the world, even if it's not quite what Jesus Christ says. (His moral code is much more radical and not at all "reciprocal". You have to do good deeds to those who have done you no good at all. This is why real Christianity is a hard act to follow.)


Is religion where morality comes from? Is being moral simply a matter of obeying divine commands? Independently-minded individuals, like Socrates (in Plato's Euthyphro), said that there is more to morality than religious obedience. One reason for this is that religious commands vary from one religion to another.


"YOU CAN HAVE FOUR WIVES
IF YOU FOLLOW THIS RELIGION,
AND ONLY ONE IF YOU
FOLLOW THAT ONE ...
THE MORAL COMMANDS OF
CHRISTIANITY OFTEN
SEEM CONTRADICTORY ...


... THE GOD OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT SEEMS
PROFOUNDLY ANTI-GAY
AND HARDLY PLURALIST ..."


"TOO RIGHT PAL! THOU
SHALT HAVE NO OTHER
GODS BEFORE ME....
... FOR I THE LORD THY
GOD AM A JEALOUS
GOD..."


Atheists and agnostics would refuse to obey any order from God they believed to be wrong. Religion on its own doesn't seem to be a complete and satisfactory foundation for human ethical beliefs. What many philosophers search for is a way of justifying moral values which are independent of religious belief.


Morality and Human Nature


One alternative answer is to say that morality comes not from external supernatural sources but from ourselves. This is one of the big questions of all time.


ARE HUMAN BEINGS
ESSENTIALLY GOOD
OR ESSENTIALLY
WICKED?


WHAT IS HUMAN
NATURE?


IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE FOR US
TO DEFINE IT OR GENERALIZE
ABOUT A SPECIES WHICH INCLUDES
LONDON BUS INSPECTORS, KALAHARI
BUSHMEN, ITALIAN TENORS, MAHATMA
GANDHI AND ADOLF HITLER?


Thinking on ethics often begins with assumptions about human nature, either negative or positive. For instance, the Christian notion of "original sin" takes the view that our nature is "fallen" and essentially bad. If this is the case, then it is our social environment and its legal sanctions that force us all to be moral. But most of us don't torture small children just because we fear a visit from the police.

(Continues...)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Introducing Ethics 3 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
The title could of been bette. I say that because this is a really good book and sometimes the title is what attracts people but in this case the title might draw people away. but its one of thee best books ive ever read espically b/c iam a deep thinker