For A-PLus Writer only

Discussion One

Using the readings and media from the week(chapter6), explain how society creates different conditions for men and women. Identify and explain at least two ways in which society is structured such that men and women are treated differently and explain why this treatment is just or unjust. What is a potential feminist ethical response to this situation and which of the thinkers from the week relate to your justification for the response?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Final Assignment (Please use all attached documents which you will need to complete the final paper)

Overview
In the Week One Assignment, you formulated a concrete ethical question, took a position on that topic, and identified a reason supporting and a reason opposing that position. In the Week Three Assignment, you discussed either deontological or utilitarian theory, applied that theory to the question, and raised a relevant objection.

By engaging with the course material, you now have had a chance to refine your thinking and broaden your understanding of the problem by approaching it from the perspective of multiple ethical theories.

In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you

Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.
Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.
Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.

Instructions
Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the

Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:

Introduction
Your first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope.
Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout on thesis statements provided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.
Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
This section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.
In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined.
For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.
Objection and Response
After explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.
Conclusion
Provide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.

Resource Requirement
You must use at least four scholarly resources. Two of the resources must be drawn from the

list of acceptable primary resources

on each of the two theories you discuss. For example, if you discuss deontology and virtue ethics, you would need at least one resource under the “Deontology” list and at least one resource under the “Virtue Ethics” list. The other two may be from either the Required or Recommended Resources, or scholarly resources found in the Ashford University Library.

The textbook may be cited, but it does not count toward the resource requirement. If you cite the textbook, you will still need to cite at least four more sources that fulfill the requirements stated above.
If you need help with finding additional resources, or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.
For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.
For information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center.

The Final Paper:

Must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding title and reference pages), and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Must include a title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement and statement of procedure.
Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.
Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
Must make meaningful reference to at least two of the ethical theories studied in the course.
Must use at least four scholarly resources that fulfill the stated requirements.
Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include a separate reference page, formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

1 Introducing Philosophy

“It is the mark of an educated mind
to be able to entertain a thought

without accepting it”
—Aristotle

©Terry Why/ Getty Images

6 Traditional Theories of Ethics

You have your way. I have my way. As for
the right way, the correct way, and the only

way, it does not exist.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Federico Caputo/iStock/Thinkstock

mos81165_06_c06.indd 175 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section

6.1 How Should One Act?

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, students will be able to:

1. Characterize the classical theories of ethics—utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

2. Identify some of the problems these theories confront.

3. Describe other metaethical views, such as relativism and egoism.

4. Apply ethical theories to problems that affect both individuals and larger groups, including
environmental challenges.

What We Will Discover

• Philosophers have developed theories to provide support for our claims about right and
wrong.

• Other theories such as egoism and relativism offer alternatives to traditional theories of
ethics.

• Ethics has many specific applications to our lives, from the very personal and specific to
those that affect everyone in society.

6.1 How Should One Act?

Ethics, or moral philosophy, investigates how we can evaluate our behavior in terms of right and wrong, good and bad—in other words, how we
determine what we should do, what we should not
do, and how to tell the difference. After looking at
the three classical ethical views that philosophers have
presented and some of the problems with these theo-
ries, we will explore some alternative approaches.

Utilitarianism

Suppose you and five of your friends are hanging out
one night and decide to order a pizza. You are all
equally hungry and decide to order two pizzas, each
of which has six slices. Thus, when the pizzas are
delivered, it is pretty easy to determine how to divide
the pizzas in a way that is the fairest: Everyone gets
two slices. It may be that one person wanted a third
slice, and someone else may have only wanted one.
Yet without knowing anything else, this arrange-
ment, more than any other, will be the most benefi-
cial to the greatest number of people.

This simple example demonstrates the basic notion at
the heart of the ethical doctrine known as utilitari-
anism. Often associated with the philosophers Jer-
emy Bentham (1748–1822) and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism offers a very straightforward and
direct way to evaluate behavior. When given a choice between two acts, utilitarianism states that

Photos.com/© Getty Images/Thinkstock

Jeremy Bentham is associated with the
founding of utilitarianism, which states
that given a choice between two acts,
the one that creates greater happiness
for the greatest number of people should
be chosen.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 176 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 How Should One Act?

Read more
about virtue

ethics in
Aristotle’s

Nicomachean
Ethics in

the Chapter
Readings

section of the
Appendix.

Some of these virtues are traditional characteristics that we still use to describe a good,
moral, or virtuous person, including courage, generosity, and being a good friend. Accord-
ing to Aristotle, a person may have too little courage, which we would call cowardice.
Another person may have too much courage, resulting in rash behavior. A soldier who
runs from the field of battle when first confronting the enemy might not have enough
courage, whereas the soldier who runs straight into machine-gun fire may have too much.
Aristotle insists that the virtuous person will have the right amount of courage and will
aim at what he calls the golden mean between having too little and having too much
of a given characteristic. Thus, someone who displays little generosity will fall on one end
of the spectrum (miserly); someone who is much too generous will fall on the opposite
end (wasteful); and a moderately generous person falls in the middle and is virtuous. The
person who has the requisite moral wisdom, or phronesis, will know how to act in a given
situation, and those acts will be in harmony with the other virtues that make up this per-
son’s character.

Aristotle also describes two virtues that are a bit more complex. One of these he calls
temperance, or sophrosunë (Aristotle, 2002). A temperate person is moderate and has
self-control. This person is able to control his or her emotions through reason and does not
indulge in the extreme. When it comes to drinking wine, the intemperate person will drink
too much of it, whereas the person who rejects it entirely, in spite of finding it enjoyable,
is regarded as insensible. Temperance, then, is a middle ground between the two excesses
of insensibility and intemperance.

Aristotle also describes a virtue he calls magnanimity, which is how we see ourselves and
how we are regarded by others (Aristotle, 2002). This can involve the respect others give
us and also the kinds of rewards and honors we can receive. Along with justice, Aristotle
considered this to be the highest virtue. Magnanimity is translated from the Greek word
megalopsuchia, which literally means “great soul” or “great mind.” This is a person who
represents excellence, is worthy of being honored by others, and knows that he or she
is worthy. Neither arrogant nor falsely modest, the virtuous person demonstrates mag-
nanimity, and as a virtue, it is possessed in a reasonable amount. People who think too
highly of themselves or who think they deserve more recognition than they actually do
are considered vain. On the other hand, those who believe they deserve no recognition
or appreciation when the opposite is likely true have too little magnanimity, a characteris-
tic Aristotle calls “low-minded.” We might call such a person too self-effacing, or falsely
modest. The truly magnanimous person has this virtue in its proper proportion; such a per-
son will be appropriately modest while appropriately proud of his or her accomplishments.

To see how virtues might interact with and balance against one another, consider the fol-
lowing example. Suppose Nick likes to go to parties, but he drinks too much and acts as if
he is everyone’s best friend. One night a fight breaks out, and Nick tries to stop it by fight-
ing with everyone involved in the original fight. Nick is unable to keep his desires in check
by practical reason; does not live in accordance with the golden mean, and he indulges in
excess. In contrast, Ted never goes to parties; he stays home alone and never has any fun.
Once, when he saw someone steal an elderly woman’s purse, he ran in the opposite direc-
tion. Ted also does not have his desires by reason, does not live in accordance with the
golden mean, and disproportionately deprives himself. Neither Nick nor Ted would qualify
as having a virtuous character. Jennifer, on the other hand, is a good friend; she is coura-
geous; she is modest but takes pride in what she does and accepts the legitimate praise
of others; and she is generous, honest, and moderate. She has what the Greeks called

mos81165_06_c06.indd 184 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 How Should One Act?

eudaimonia, which can be translated in a variety of ways, including happiness, flourishing, and
well-being. Aristotle would say that because Jennifer’s virtues are in their proper balance and
proportion, she has eudaimonia.

It is easy to get lost in Aristotle’s technical vocabulary, but his basic point is that the person who
makes the right moral choices, or behaves ethically, is a virtuous person and is the kind of person
we admire for that reason. We object to those who are deficient in one or more of the char-
acteristics we have mentioned, but we also object to those who display one or more of these
attributes excessively. The person who has eudaimonia is the person who has acquired the cor-
rect conception of the virtues, individually and as a whole, and as such, offers us an example of
what kinds of moral choices should be made. We may not actually know of such a person, and
indeed such a person may not actually exist. However, the conception of such a virtuous person
helps us examine our own choices and behavior to see where we are doing the right thing and
where we may need improvement.

As is often the case with ethical theories, virtue ethics initially sounds clear, obvious, and easy to
apply. But just as challenges exist to both utilitarianism and deontology, certain problems arise
for proponents of virtue ethics.

Problems With Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics differs from utilitarianism and deontology in that it examines not what a person
does, but what kind of character he or she has. In addition to the virtues, this theory provides us
with a spectrum on which to moderate our own behavior, as well as an ideal for which to strive.
Applying these notions in real-world examples is more difficult than it would initially appear,
however.

For example, consider one of Aristotle’s specific virtues, courage. While it is easy to imagine
plenty of scenarios in which someone has an excess of courage or a lack of sufficient courage,
it is difficult to determine what the appropriate amount of courage would be for more nuanced
situations. Imagine Steve is a prisoner of war, kept in very brutal conditions with a number of his
fellow soldiers. He knows he has a fairly good chance of escaping, but if he is caught, the guards
will torture and execute him. He also knows that if a prisoner successfully escapes, the guards
will choose another prisoner at random, torture him, and then execute him. To escape under
these conditions requires a certain degree of courage; but choosing not to escape also requires
some courage. Under these circumstances, how should Steve be appropriately courageous? It
is not clear that there is a golden mean to which Steve can appeal, and it is therefore not clear
which, if either, of the possible actions is virtuous. In this specific case then, it seems that virtue
ethics lacks sufficient guidance for how to act. Similar problems confront the other virtues. Is
there an “appropriate amount” of lying one should do in order to be virtuous? Should one be
willing to break some promises but keep others? Even if we think there may be solutions to vari-
ous individual ethical dilemmas, virtue ethics seems to fail to offer the kind of general solution
offered by utilitarianism and deontology.

Another problem with virtue ethics is that Aristotle and many virtue ethicists seem to think that
certain terms are well understood and that everyone shares the same general conception of the
virtues. But do we? We may think that friendship, for example, is universally understood. Yet
imagine Carl, who thinks of himself as a very good friend to Charles and Kate, the couple that
lives next door. Carl discovers that Charles has been having an affair with Kate’s best friend. Pre-
sumably, friends tell each other the truth, but friends also do not want to see their friends hurt,

mos81165_06_c06.indd 185 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 How Should One Act?

Read
Alasdair

MacIntyre’s
work After
Virtue in

the Chapter
Readings
section of the
Appendix.

their marriages broken, and so on. It is not at all clear what Carl should do in this case.
More importantly, people would likely disagree over what Carl should do if he is actually
to be a good friend. Thus, we all may not share the same general conception of “friend-
ship.” Such problems multiply because each virtue will confront this kind of problem and
will encounter further problems upon trying to determine the appropriate amount of each
virtue and how they should be balanced with each other. It is for this reason that some
philosophers have rejected virtue ethics entirely. For example, in his text After Virtue, Alas-
dair MacIntyre (2007) dismisses the concept and possibly even the existence of virtues.

One other traditional problem for virtue ethics is that of relativity, or when one culture
views an act as a virtue but another regards that very same act as a vice. Consider two
communities, A and Z. A is a culture of warriors that insists its members be fierce and
respond violently to threats. Z is a culture of pacifists that insists its members always “turn
the other cheek” and respond to threats with nonviolence and negotiation. A group of
outsiders, X, sets up camp outside of both A’s and Z’s land. X appears to have a great num-
ber of weapons and may well pose a threat. Accordingly, A reacts to X’s presence violently,
while Z reacts to X’s presence nonviolently. Virtue ethics does not seem to offer a wholly
adequate way of determining whether A’s violent response or Z’s nonviolent response
is appropriate. A will regard Z’s pacifism as immoral, just as Z will regard A’s violence as
immoral. The point is not so much to determine whether A or Z (or neither) is doing the
virtuous thing. Rather, it is that virtue ethics does not seem to offer enough guidance to
make this determination. Or it ends up saying that both responses, for the respective cul-
ture, are virtuous. But if all our moral evaluations must be made relative to a given culture,
then virtue ethics cannot address actions that have different value in different cultures. In
other words, if evaluations are relativized, then virtue ethics does nothing more than say
some things are right and some are wrong, but no one can really object when someone
from another culture does something wrong so long as they act within their culture’s
moral parameters. There are those who do indeed support this view, which is known as
ethical relativism. (See Table 6.1 for a review of ethical theories and theorists.)

Table 6.1: Concept review: Theories and theorists

Ethical theory Key figure Basic idea

Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill An act (or rule) is good or right if it produces the
greatest net good for the greatest number.

Deontology Immanuel Kant An act is good or right if it is done because it
is the right thing to do, in accordance with a
justified moral rule or rules.

Virtue ethics Aristotle Morality is determined on the basis of specific
virtues, exemplified by a person of noble or
virtuous character.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 186 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section

6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

Each of the three classic ethical theories—utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics—has advantages and disadvantages, and none offers an obvious or easily applied solution to the question, “What should I do?” In this section, we will look at alternatives that have been
developed in contrast to these three classic theories. Technically, these are regarded as “meta-
ethical” views, in contrast to normative ethics. Normative ethics provides a way of evaluating
acts as moral or determining whether a given act is right or wrong. Metaethics, as employed
here, is the attempt to understand what ethics is and how we can and should understand moral
questions and evaluations.

Ethical Egoism

Ego comes from the Greek word for “I.” Most readers probably know at least a few people
who could be described as having a big ego; that is, people with an exaggerated sense of their
abilities, talents, accomplishments, or qualities. Egoism, then, means to have a focus on one’s
self, and ethical egoism is the idea that one’s conception of right and wrong, good and evil,
and other moral terms are determined by one’s own sense of value. To return to the notion of
utility, we could describe this position as advocating that one should do what maximizes one’s
own utility. In short, I should do what is in my own self-interest. Thus, in the most literal sense,
this theory is selfish. Yet unlike more traditional moral theories, selfishness, or self-interest, is not
seen as wrong or immoral, but the preferred way for one to act.

Let us return to the example of the group of children playing in a sandbox with access to only
one toy. Sally, the ethical egoist—who we will just call the egoist from now on—determines
that what makes her happiest, or maximizes her utility, is to have the toy to herself. Thus, it is in
Sally’s self-interest to get the toy, keep the toy, and play with they toy all by herself. This is not,
however, the only result possible. It may be that she decides that she would get more out of it
if everyone shared, or for that matter, if only one other person got to play with the toy. If she
concludes that some other option is in her self-interest, then she should adopt that choice. So
we can see that the crucial factor in this case is not that Sally gets the toy to herself; it is that
what she perceives as most beneficial to herself will be what she should do.

Great Ideas: Different Cultures, Different Ethics?

In ancient China emperors were known to have several wives. They also had dozens, even thousands,
of concubines, women who functioned as “secondary wives” in many ways, including sexually. For
example, Emperor Taizong (599–649) of the Tang Dynasty was reputed to have 3,000 concubines.

With this in mind, consider the following questions:

1. How might a utilitarian argue that Emperor Taizong was acting immorally?
2. How might a deontologist argue that Emperor Taizong was acting immorally?
3. How might a virtue ethicist argue that Emperor Taizong was acting immorally?
4. Is there an argument that justifies Emperor Taizong’s behavior? What would such an argu-

ment look like?
5. Do you think ethical values change over time? Would this affect how we might judge this

situation today, and how we might have judged this situation in the 7th century?

mos81165_06_c06.indd 187 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

Read Joel
Feinberg’s
“Psycho-
logical

Egoism” in
the Chapter

Readings
section of the
Appendix.

Now let us revisit the example of Mary, who is trying to decide whether to go dancing
or stay home with her three children. Factoring in the happiness of Mary and the three
children, the utilitarian argued that everyone would be best off if Mary stayed home—that
this scenario would produce the greatest net good for the greatest number. The egoist
might conclude otherwise: If Mary sees her greatest happiness achieved by going out
dancing, then she should go out dancing. Again, Mary may conclude that it would make
her happiest to stay home. The egoist’s position is that what Mary should do is whatever
Mary sees as in her self-interest.

We saw that the classic theories of ethics—utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics—
all had problems when we tried to apply them to real life. Egoism, however, seems not
to have that problem. People determine what is in their self-interest. They do what they
think will make them best off, and according to this theory, that is what they should do.

Suppose Joe is a retired billionaire investment banker. He has several houses, cars, and
servants and can take vacations whenever and wherever he wants. One day Joe sees Mike,
an old friend from high school who has become homeless. Mike asks Joe for $10. For Joe,
this amount is almost nothing; but Joe considers whether he would be better off giving
the money to Mike or keeping it himself. Joe decides he would be happier keeping his
money; egoism tells us that is what he should do. Traditional ethical theories and religious
views may regard Joe as being selfish, greedy, and more generally, acting immorally. Ego-
ism, however, does not; traditional conceptions of selfishness are not regarded by egoism
as immoral. It may turn out, of course, that Joe decides that it is in his self-interest to give
Mike the $10; it might make him feel better to help out an old friend, and after all, it is
not much of a sacrifice for Joe. But egoism leaves that decision up to Joe, and what Joe
perceives to be in his own self-interest is what Joe should do.

Many economists have argued that this is in fact how economic exchanges work in free
markets. Buyers want to get as much as they can as cheaply as they can; sellers want to
sell as much as they can for the highest price. Individuals, then, want to maximize their
utility by getting as much as they can out of the exchange. In the traditional views, this
sounds not just selfish, but greedy. Yet we assume everyone has, more or less, the same
amount of information about the product involved, and we also assume that everyone
knows that everyone else is trying to maximize his or her self-interest. In this way the mar-
ket will in theory be most efficient and create more goods and more wealth for everyone
if everyone acts in ways that maximize his or her self-interest.

Recognizing that greed was traditionally regarded as sin, political economist Bernard
Mandeville (1670–1733) claimed that great benefits would be produced if everyone were
greedy. He described this arrangement as “private vices, public benefits”: That is, the pri-
vate vice of selfishness would actually end up making society wealthier than it would have
been otherwise, which is a public benefit. Joel Feinberg (1926–2004) is another philoso-
pher who considered the role of selfishness in human actions. Feinberg, however, argues
against psychological egoism, the idea that humans are internally driven to do all acts by
selfish motives. He demonstrates logical inconsistencies in this position and ultimately
claims that it is an unsound judgment about human motives in ethical judgment.

Problems With Ethical Egoism

Ethicists, religious leaders, and many others protest against ethical egoism because it
seems to promote selfishness. The objection is fairly obvious: Being selfish is wrong, either

mos81165_06_c06.indd 188 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

because it is immoral, a sin, or both; so too must be an ethical theory that promotes it. How-
ever, another more subtle question might trouble the ethical egoist: How do we determine our
self-interest?

Ethical egoism assumes that any individual can identify what is in his or her self-interest, but
that may not always be the case. When considering what action to take, do I evaluate my self-
interest in the short term, the long term, or something in between? Perhaps I think it is in my
short-term self-interest to eat an entire blueberry pie because it is delicious; this will be against
my self-interest, however, if I have a long-term goal of losing weight. Perhaps we could adopt
the principle that my long-term interest should always override my short-term interest. Yet can
I really be sure what my long-term interest is and that it will not change? Even if the question
of what I know about my self-interest can be answered, a bigger problem may then arise: Can I
ever be wrong about my self-interest? If whatever I do is defined as having been done in my self-
interest, then how could I ever do something against my self-interest? The egoist maxim “One
should do whatever one does” does not seem to offer much in the way of guidance.

An example further illustrates this. Suppose Emma decides it is in her self-interest to become,
over time, very wealthy. Despite her love of shopping, taking nice vacations, and going out to
expensive dinners with her friends, she resists doing so and becomes very frugal. She only buys
the cheapest things and has to actively resist her friends’ invitations to do all her favorite activi-
ties. She puts all the money she saves into the stock market and other investments and slowly
starts to generate a substantial amount of money. She sees her friends less and less often and
becomes somewhat of a hermit. After several years she realizes that she is very lonely, does not
have much fun, and is generally unpleasant to be around. Even though she has met her goal of
becoming wealthy, she realizes that she sacrificed too much to reach that goal. She decides to
give all of her money away to charity and focuses on doing volunteer work to help others.

The ethical egoist would have offered Emma little guidance. By choosing her long-term goals
over her short-term goals, Emma presumably maximized her utility. However, had she decided
otherwise—to continue shopping, vacationing, and eating at expensive restaurants—she would
have maximized her utility as well. This is because she would have made either choice in her own
self-interest. Worse yet, her long-term goals changed, so she gave up not just her short-term
pleasures but also her original long-term goal when she adopted a new one. Whatever Emma
determines is in her self-interest is what she should do, but she clearly was not able to determine
what that long-term self-interest really was.

Great Ideas: Short-Term and Long-Term Interests

Mark graduated from college six months ago. He has $5,000 in student loans and $1,000 in savings.
He has been looking for a job for several weeks, with no luck.

Reflection Questions:
With this in mind, consider the following questions:

1. Which of the following should Mark pursue if he wants to maximize his short-term
interests?

2. Which of the following should Mark pursue if he wants to maximize his long-term
interests?

(continued)

mos81165_06_c06.indd 189 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

Like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, ethical egoism also falls short on the ethical
issue of lying. The classical theories all had guidance for when or if one should lie, but their
results were unsatisfactory and occasionally led to strange or even wrong outcomes. An egoist
would be even less helpful on this subject. If Carolyn asks Bob to go to the movies but Bob does
not want to go, should he lie and say he is busy? Should he tell the truth and say he does not
want to go? The advice ethical egoism seems to offer is that it is all right for him to lie if he does
so out of self-interest; the same is true if he tells the truth out of self-interest. It is unclear how
this reasoning can help Bob make an ethical decision, however.

Relativism

We have now examined a number of theories and also acknowledged that each has its problems.
One might be tempted to abandon the search for an ethical theory at this point, at least one
that tells people what they should do and how they should live. Rather than taking this course
of action, however, we should recognize that there are no universal or general ethical standards;
that a person’s ethical view is relative to his or her culture, society, tradition, religion, worldview,
and even individual values. Because moral claims are said to be relative to something else, this is
a metaethical view known as relativism. Even though philosophers distinguish between different
kinds of relativism, we will generally use the term to mean that any ethical claim is relative to a
set of beliefs and that any such ethical claim is true, or consistent with, that set of beliefs. To take
a simple example: Suppose you like comedies and your best friend likes action films. It is not too
problematic here to reject the suggestion that comedies are better than action films or to reject
the suggestion that action films are better than comedies; each claim is relative to one’s beliefs,
desires, and preferences. Although it may make things more difficult when you and your friend
go see a movie together, neither of you is determined to convince the other that there is some
true, objective, or factual claim being ignored about the merits of comedies and action films.

Moral Relativism
Moral relativism extends this idea to the area of ethics. Ethical evaluations—saying some act is
right or wrong—are made in terms of the context of that act and therefore are relative to the
actor’s culture and values. For example, some cultures bury their dead; some cremate their dead;
some allow them to be exposed to the elements and scavengers; some mummify their dead (at
least their important dead, such as Egyptian pharaohs); some cultures have even been reported
to eat their dead. Which is right? Are any of these wrong? Some religions require the cremation
of the dead, whereas other religions prohibit it. What is the relativist response to these issues?

Great Ideas: Short-Term and Long-Term Interests
(continued)

3. How confident should Mark be about these decisions? In other words, can he distinguish
with a very high degree of certainty between his short-term and long-term interests?

A. Mark borrows more money to buy an expensive guitar he has wanted for several years,
in order to become a professional musician.

B. Mark invests $500 and pays $500 on his student loans.
C. Mark pays $1,000 on his student loans.
D. Mark invests $1,000 in a speculative stock offering, having been told by a friend that

the stock will go up 100% in the next year.
E. Mark buys $1,000 in lottery tickets.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 190 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

The relativist simply says that the practice a given culture adopts as correct determines what
should be done. Let culture A be a society that cremates, or ritually burns, its dead, while culture
B is a society that prohibits cremation. The relativist says A’s tradition is correct for A and not
for B; in the same way, B’s tradition is correct for B and not for A. Just as important for the view
we are calling moral relativism is that those who live in culture A cannot say that cremating is
right and not cremating is wrong; they can only say it is right for them. In the same way, those
in culture B cannot say that cremating is wrong and not cremating is right; they can only say it
is wrong for them. The opinion of cremation, then, is relative to the given culture, and there is
no objective ethical standard to appeal to for determining whether cremating one’s dead is right
or wrong.

Many people find this position very attractive. It seems to eliminate the need, or desire, to
provide objective evaluations for all people and all societies. It allow us to simply “agree to dis-
agree,” in that if some culture or society or religion does something that our society would deem
as immoral, we are free to say it is wrong for our society but not for others.

Moral relativism is often characterized in terms of cultures, and cultural anthropologists have
identified many practices that contrast, and even conflict, with some of the standard Western
traditions. There are numerous rituals and ceremonies relating to birth, achieving adult status,
marrying, and dying, to name a few, that reflect a wide range of beliefs and values.

We saw that Aristotle recommended generosity, within its appropriate limits, as one of the chief
qualities a virtuous person would possess. Imagine a society in which people who are deemed
good or virtuous are those who have the greatest wealth; in this society people would gain vir-
tuous status by accumulating as much as they can and keeping it all to themselves. In contrast,
consider a society in which people are deemed good or virtuous if they give all of their wealth
away. Aristotle regarded a moderate amount of generosity as universally virtuous. Here we see
that the moral relativist might regard a deficiency of generosity (keeping everything for oneself)
as a virtue, relative to a society’s values; an excess of generosity (giving everything away) can
also be seen as virtue, relative to a society’s values. The moral relativist concludes that the claim
“generosity is a virtue” can only be evaluated in terms of a specific society’s values.

Great Ideas: Cultural Relativism

Consider some of the following activities that involve cultural practices and traditions. Can you imag-
ine a version of one or more of these practices that you would find objectionable? What does cultural
relativism tell us about your objection? If you cannot imagine any practice that is objectionable, does
that mean absolutely everything is morally permissible? If so, what are the implications of this idea?

• Dating
• Marriage
• Health care
• How the elderly are treated
• What foods one can eat
• Raising children
• Education
• Encountering strangers
• Death
• Adultery

mos81165_06_c06.indd 191 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

Just as we considered the perspective of the other moral theories on this subject, what would
the moral relativist have to say on the topic of lying? Is it wrong to lie? Is it okay to lie? Is it some-
times wrong to lie and sometimes right to lie? The moral relativist would likely say, “It depends.”
If your society rewards lying, or at least does not punish it, then lying might well be okay. If your
society, on the other hand, has strict penalties against lying (whether legal, official, or informally
enforced by community members), then lying will be wrong. “Lying is right” or “lying is wrong”
are the kinds of claims avoided by the moral relativist, who would advocate statements more
along the lines of, “Lying is right relative to a society that permits or encourages lying” and
“Lying is wrong relative to a society that prohibits lying.”

Extreme Relativism
So far we have discussed relativism in terms of societies and cultures. However, it is worth point-
ing out there is an extreme, or radical, kind of relativism, often associated with the ancient Greek
philosopher Protagoras (ca. 490–420 bce). This kind of relativism is said to hold true for individu-
als: If a person says something is true or false, right or wrong, then it is true or false and right
or wrong for that person. We saw an example of this when you and your friend discussed your
preferences for movies: For you it was true that comedies were best; for your friend, it was true
that action films were best. Protagorean, or extreme, relativism extends this idea to all claims,
including ethical ones. Presumably, this means if you think shoplifting is wrong but another per-
son says shoplifting is not wrong, there is no “fact” we can point to in order to determine who
is correct. Shoplifting is wrong for you, but not wrong (or even right) for the other person. That
is about all there is to say about such disagreements.

This kind of relativism is often attractive in ethics because it allows us to avoid judging or criticiz-
ing other people and cultures. This is especially true when we are considering cultures and tradi-
tions with which we are not very familiar. However, similar to the other moral theories, issues
have been raised with relativism as well.

Problems With Relativism

One problem with relativism is that some acts or traditions seem wrong not just in relation to
a culture, but simply wrong on their own. For example, an ancient Hindu practice called suttee
requires a woman whose husband has recently died to commit suicide by throwing herself on
his funeral pyre. This can be done voluntarily, or she might be forced to do so. (The practice has
been outlawed but occasionally still occurs.) Some societies continue to practice slavery. Others
make child pornography widely available. Some societies practice infanticide, or the killing (or
allowing to die) of an infant after birth if it lacks desired characteristics (frequently if it is a girl).
Some societies have executed prisoners—often on flimsy or inadequate charges and with little
legal protection—in order to take their organs and sell them on the black market. Of course, the
20th century offered many examples of leaders—Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler,
to name a few—who caused the deaths of millions under their reign.

The relativist would seem to say that such examples are wrong only relative to a specific culture
or worldview. Perhaps we are from a culture that views infanticide or slavery as wrong; we would
then say that, for us, these things are wrong. Yet from the perspective of a culture that does not
share our views, perhaps infanticide or slavery—or both—are not wrong or are even right. The
extreme cases tend to make people uncomfortable, which is the point. Do we want to say that
a government policy that results in family members eating each other is only wrong relative to

mos81165_06_c06.indd 192 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

a given value system, or that such a policy is simply, fundamentally, universally, and obviously
wrong? To be consistent, the relativist has to say that no matter how wrong something seems
to be, the idea of “wrong” is still relative. This suggestion may make you as uncomfortable as it
makes some ethical theorists.

Reformer’s Dilemma
A second, more sophisticated objection to relativism, known as the “Reformer’s Dilemma” (Feld-
man, 1978, p. 166), has been provided by the philosopher Fred Feldman (b. 1941). Imagine
Sarah lives in a society that values boys but not girls. To keep the society going, some number
of girls is needed, but parents are allowed to kill a third, female child if they already have a girl.
Furthermore, if a couple already has three children, girls or boys, they are required to kill all
subsequent female children. Sarah thinks this is wrong; perhaps she just feels it is wrong, or
perhaps she has substantial arguments for her position. Yet moral relativism says that her soci-
ety determines what is wrong or right, and it has determined that killing girls is right. So Sarah
must be wrong to object to this policy. More generally, anyone who objects to any of a society’s
policies must be wrong. Thus, by this logic, Martin Luther King Jr. would have been wrong to
object to oppressive and racist American practices in the 1960s; Nelson Mandela would have
been wrong to object to the oppressive and racist South African system of apartheid. In fact,
anyone who wished to change society could never be correct. This seems problematic, given
that many of history’s most admired people were critical of their societies. Worse, this seems to
suggest that if criticizing social values always puts a person in the wrong, then society cannot
ever be improved, and thus must be perfect. Yet as Feldman observes, this poses a challenge to
the absolute relativist.

Remembering What We Agree On
Perhaps the most sophisticated response to relativism can be found in the work of American
philosopher Donald Davidson, who expanded upon the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Davidson
(1974) argues that radical relativism is incoherent, for several reasons. First, assume that the
relativist is right and that a person’s beliefs are relative to his or her society. However, we must
recall that within any society, a person can “belong” to many different kinds of groups, based
on ethnicity, class, income level, language, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on.
Consider Jafari, who has lived for most of his life in France but was born in Egypt. His native
language is Arabic and he is Muslim. From which group does he derive his values? What if one
group to which Jafari belongs approves of, say, restricting women from working outside the
home, whereas another group to which he belongs disapproves of such a prohibition? How
does Jafari figure out whether it is right or wrong? To take the idea to its extreme, does a poor
White 50-year-old Lutheran heterosexual woman from Texas have moral values in common with
an 18-year-old wealthy Chinese lesbian or with a homosexual middle-class 50-year-old White
Unitarian male from Pennsylvania? It seems that the many factors that constitute culture pose a
problem for the relativist who argues that culture determines our values.

Second, Davidson points out that when discussing ethical viewpoints, politics, religion, and other
controversial topics, we almost always focus on the areas over which we disagree. Yet in order
to reach a point of disagreement, there are actually numerous issues and ideas upon which we
actually agree. Consider a debate over gun control between Jim and John. Jim thinks no one
should be able to own a handgun; John thinks everyone should be required to own a handgun.
Their disagreement seems substantial, yet imagine if they started their disagreement by listing

mos81165_06_c06.indd 193 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

the points on which they agree, the points that make their disagreement possible—such as that
guns do not speak Japanese, guns do not make good hats, guns are not an appropriate filling for
sandwiches, guns cannot fly, and so on. This exercise hardly makes our disagreements disappear,
yet it highlights how people’s agreements typically outnumber their disagreements. As Davidson
puts it, disagreements—even between two people from dramatically different cultures—can
only occur within the context of massive agreement, or on the assumption of an enormous back-
ground of shared ideas. Relativists would likely purport that two people from different cultures
would agree on very little. However, in order to disagree, Davidson argues that they must agree
on an awful lot even to reach the point of disagreement.

Nietzsche’s Challenge

Relativism seems to place ethical problems on a scale of “difficult to solve” to “unsolvable.”
As Davidson indicates, this may be the consequence of focusing exclusively on what divides us
rather than what unites us. Others have challenged even more fundamentally the values of soci-
ety as a whole, including traditional political and religious structures. Perhaps the most powerful
such challenge came from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nietzsche’s father, uncle, and grandfathers were all Lutheran pastors, but Nietzsche’s father
died when he was 4 years old, and his brother died a few months later. Nietzsche was raised by
his mother and sister, was sent to a highly prestigious boarding school in Germany, and at the
age of just 24 accepted a position to teach classical philology (the study of classical Greek and
Latin texts) at the University of Basel in Switzerland. Nietzsche taught there for 10 years, but his
job was interrupted by military service, during which he received a serious injury. His health in
general was not good, and he had to resign from his teaching post. He spent much of the rest
of his life wandering around Italy, France, Switzerland, and Germany. In 1889 Nietzsche had a
mental breakdown and collapsed in Turin, Italy. He spent the remaining years of his life unable
to communicate, not realizing that the many books he had produced had begun to make him a
world-famous philosopher.

Übermensch
Nietzsche’s influence on 20th-century philosophy is difficult to overstate. He presented, and still
represents, a radical challenge to traditional ethical viewpoints. His position called for a reevalua-
tion of all values; that is, a criticism and scrutiny of all the various things that traditional morality
and religion had said were good or wrong. In doing so Nietzsche determined that much of tradi-
tional morality was fundamentally wrong. He declared that “God is dead” (and had been killed
by human beings) and defended atheism. Nietzsche thought that Judaism and Christianity had
adopted the ancient ideas of the Greeks and Romans and perverted them. Before Christianity,
the “good” was identified as the strong, the powerful, the courageous, the noble, and the cre-
ative; the “bad” was that which was weak, timid, small-minded, and cowardly. Nietzsche argued
that Christianity turned this upside down. He suggested that people had been convinced by “the
priests”—those who control a society’s moral, cultural, political, and religious values—that what
had been good was now evil and what had been bad was now good. Hence, he saw the prevail-
ing morality as preventing those who were noble, creative, and bold from being recognized as
superior to the masses. He also argued that the masses—who were timid and weak—could be
easily controlled by those in power, like sheep by a shepherd. He thought both Christianity and

mos81165_06_c06.indd 194 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

Read
Friedrich

Nietzsche’s
Beyond Good

and Evil in
the Chapter

Readings
section of the
Appendix.

democracy (a democracy being of a mass of people who were kept ignorant and did what
they were told) held back society’s very few exceptional individuals who were capable of
achieving greatness. Such an individual was called by Nietzsche an Übermensch, which is
usually translated as “superman” or “overman” (Nietzsche, 1973). This overman creates
his (or her; Nietzsche’s issues with women are notorious, but very complex) own values,
and his own morality, as an expression of his power to overcome the values people around
him have tried to force upon him. In this way the overman becomes a free and indepen-
dent spirit, risking everything in his unwillingness to accept social conventions. Ultimately,
Nietzsche (1974) suggests a view he calls “eternal recurrence” as the goal of the truly
noble soul: People should seek a life that they would be happy living if they were to have
to live exactly that way for eternity.

Critiques of

Nietzsche

Those who have resisted Nietzsche’s ideas (and there are many) do so for a number of rea-
sons. Unlike Nietzsche, they think moral and religious traditions express important truths
and values, and certainly disagree that “God is dead.” Most Nietzsche scholars reject the
idea that he was the type of extreme relativist discussed previously in this chapter; how-
ever, it is easy to see why some might regard him that way. After all, if one creates one’s
own values, then those values would seem relative to that person. Some critics regard
Nietzsche as elitist because of his suggestion that just a few “great souls” were allowed
full access to freedom and independence, but the great masses who did not so qualify
were relegated to mediocrity, following rules they did not understand and more or less
doing what they were told.

However, there is no denying that in the history
of ethics, Nietzsche presents a serious challenge
to a number of different moral and religious
traditions. He requires us to examine our moral
values and see how we use them to justify our
actions. Has Christianity been used to promise
people a true reward that will come after death
to make it easier to control them while alive?
Have Western societies often punished people
who are unwilling to go along with their over-
riding values? Interestingly enough, at times
Nietzsche identified Jesus as a person whom
society punished for being brave and indepen-
dent enough to raise profound objections to
the values imposed upon him, but Nietzsche
(1968) also remarked that the “last true Chris-
tian died on the cross” (sec. 39). Have societ-
ies that officially or unofficially regarded them-
selves as Christian acted in ways that violate
the very Christian principles they are said to
embrace? These and many of Nietzsche’s other
questions are important reminders that people
often say one thing but do another. Nietzsche’s

Oronoz/SuperStock

Friedrich Nietzsche called for intense
scrutiny and criticism of all of what
traditional morality and religion had
deemed as good and bad.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 195 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

willingness to expose this hypocrisy has continued to confront Western philosophy, specifi-
cally its development of moral theories. He has, therefore, demanded that philosophers and all
those interested in moral questions carefully consider whether what we do actually conforms to
what we believe. Demanding we make this critical and uncomfortable self-examination is the
very thing that makes those demanding it unpopular; many think this was precisely the reason
Socrates was executed. At the same time, most of us recognize that it is to our benefit to see
if there are any contradictions between what we believe, why we believe it, and how we treat
others.

Tolerance and Diversity

We may well reject Nietzsche’s scathing critique of society and its hypocrisy. We may also resist
what seem to be Nietzsche’s elitism and his lack of tolerance. At the same time, given the
increasing global interdependence and the diversity of societies, philosophers have also worried
about whether we can determine what an appropriate amount of tolerance is. The United States
is a diverse country, with people from a vast number of backgrounds who represent numer-
ous ethnic groups, religious traditions, and countries of origin. Some 80% of Americans speak
English, but according to the 2010 U.S. Census, more than 350 other languages are spoken (or
signed) in the United States (although some of these are spoken by a very small groups). Some
estimate there are more than 200 different religious denominations in the United States. There is
even more diversity globally, of course: The planet’s 7 billion people speak thousands of different
languages, practice thousands of different religious traditions and denominations, and are com-
posed of thousands of different ethnic groups. In India alone, for example, some 350 different
languages are spoken by a substantial number of people, even though its official state language
is Hindi (and its secondary “official” language is English).

Assuming that differences in culture, religion, ethnicity, and other value systems generate dis-
agreement, this degree of diversity would indicate a good deal of disagreement. It would be nice
to think that ethicists—or anyone else, for that matter—could come up with a recipe for pre-
venting, or at least minimizing, these disagreements and thereby minimize the military invasions,
terrorism, and various other violence caused by these disagreements. That may seem a bit opti-
mistic, but it is worth thinking about how the study of ethics could move us closer to this goal.

Extreme Tolerance and Intolerance
We can start by identifying two positions on opposite ends of the spectrum: extreme toler-
ance and extreme intolerance. The extremely tolerant person will accept all cultures, perspec-
tives, views, and ethical values expressed by any society, anywhere, and at any time. In short an
extremely tolerant person tolerates everything. Extreme intolerance, on the other hand, involves
tolerating nothing but one’s own view. Thus, the extremely intolerant culture Z rejects all other
cultures from A through Y. One and only one position is acceptable to Z, and Z regards all
other cultures as wrong. The extremely tolerant society, on the other hand, never considers
another view to be wrong and never challenges or criticizes it. Thus, it would never need to
engage another culture or society militarily. The extremely intolerant society may always be at
war, however, for it always sees any culture with distinct views as being incorrect.

It is likely that few, if any, cultures qualify as either extremely tolerant or extremely intolerant.
Most fall between these two extremes. Considering the polar opposites is useful, however,

mos81165_06_c06.indd 196 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Alternatives to Traditional Theories of Ethics

because it gives us a sense of the limits involved in describing the various ways one might
endorse, or advocate, tolerance. For even though many agree that “tolerance” is generally a
good thing, we can see that too much tolerance could be as bad as too much intolerance. Imag-
ine you are sitting quietly at home, watching a baseball game with a friend. Someone comes in,
shoots your friend, and takes everything you own. An extremely tolerant person would have no
objections to this scenario. More generally, extreme tolerance may lead to what one might call
the paradox of tolerance, for the extremely tolerant person cannot object to the extremely intol-
erant person, and ends up tolerating the most vicious, dogmatic, and violent kind of intolerant
behavior. Even if tolerance is a virtue, Aristotle would tell us that too much tolerance can be bad.

However, a look around indicates that threats are more likely to stem from intolerance. A gov-
ernment may ban free speech or a particular religion. Two countries may go to war over a piece
of land not because they each want it, but rather they each want to prevent the other from
acquiring it. Terrorists may kill people who practice a different religion or those who simply hold
different values. A town may practice informal discrimination against people regarded by the
majority as “different,” whether because they are a different race, religion, sexual orientation,
or have another minority identity. A person may decide that abortion is so immoral that it is
acceptable to murder a doctor who performs abortions. Do philosophers, specifically ethicists,
have tools to question these and other intolerant acts?

Reflective Equilibrium
In his extremely influential 1971 book A Theory of Justice, the philosopher John Rawls
(1921–2002) puts forth a strategy he calls reflective equilibrium. While the full theory is quite
complex, Rawls’s fundamental ideas help make clear our sense of fairness. Rawls believes any
plausible conception of justice must be one that is regarded by all who participate in a society’s
decisions as fair, and thus he is famous for characterizing justice as fairness (Rawls, 1971).

Rawls describes a thought experiment where people come together to design a society in which
they will at some point live. He puts a crucial condition on those designing this society: They
are behind what he calls a “veil of ignorance” (1971). That is, they do not know what kind of
person they will be in this future society: They do not know their gender, race, religion (if any),
class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical handicaps, and so on. Thus, what the participants
determine to be fair must express what each thinks would be fair for all. For instance, a man
would not describe a society that discriminates against women, for he might discover that in this
future society, he is one.

Part of Rawls’s discussion requires the notion of reflective equilibrium, where individuals with
various moral and political views discuss the moral and political views of others, in order to see
what agreement can be reached. As Rawls describes the idea, “adopting the role of observing
moral theorist, we investigate what principles people would acknowledge and accept the conse-
quences of when they have an opportunity to consider other plausible conceptions and to assess
their supporting grounds” (Rawls, 1971).

To illustrate the idea further, consider the following example. John and Mary, who come from
very different backgrounds, compare their notions of a just and fair society. They both are willing
to consider the other’s viewpoint and recognize that some adjustment to their own notion may
have to be made. Perhaps John is suspicious of religions other than his own, whereas Mary is
an agnostic and thus has no religion. Through reflective equilibrium, John adjusts his beliefs to
accept others who may not share his religious views, and Mary adjusts her beliefs to allow more
tolerance for those who cherish their religious commitments. After much give and take, they

mos81165_06_c06.indd 197 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section

6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

come to a position they both accept. In a certain sense Rawls offers a sophisticated account of
precisely what many people do all the time: compromise. In doing so he suggests a nonviolent
way of solving our disputes, and thus provides us with another way to think about making our
diverse and often contentious planet more harmonious.

6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

We have seen some of the best known ethical theories and some of the challenges they confront. We have also seen some of the alternatives to these traditional theories and some of their weaknesses. We will now look at more specific ethical issues, describe
the problems they present, and examine how ethical theories might be used to resolve them. We
will begin with personal or individual ethical issues before turning to more general social ethi-
cal issues, although there is often overlap between these. We will see that many ethical issues
require us to think about the relationship between the individual and his or her society and how
one influences the other. (See Table 6.2 for a list of topics to be explored in ethics.)

Table 6.2: Concept review: Topics to be explored

Individual issues in ethics

Promises

Free speech

Greed

Vegetarianism

Euthanasia

Social issues in ethics

Animal rights

Plato’s critique of democracy

Rawls’s conception of fairness

The environment

The personal and the political

Libertarianism

Victimless crimes

Promises

We all make promises, and for the most part we expect promises to be kept. Since I expect oth-
ers to keep their promises, deontological ethics insists that this means I should keep the promises
I make. The utilitarian takes a different approach; perhaps there are situations in which the great-
est number achieves the greatest net good by breaking a promise. We probably also think that
promises have a certain context, or set of conditions. For example, we should not make promises
we know we cannot keep. Yet it may not be unethical to make a promise, try our best to fulfill
it, yet end up breaking it. Various kinds of examples bear out these ideas further.

Imagine you promise to pay Smith $5 next week if he loans it to you today (you are friends, so he
does not charge you interest). Smith may think that in addition to being paid back, if he loans you
money, you might return the favor some day if he is in need. Similarly, you do not want Smith to

mos81165_06_c06.indd 198 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

regard you as someone who does not meet his obligations; or perhaps you might need to borrow
money again in the future, so you want to be sure to pay it back this time. One might look at this
from the point of view of ethical egoism: You and Smith are both looking out for your self-interest,
now and in the future. So Smith loans you the money, and you promise to pay it back (and do).

On the one hand, your self-interest is best met by getting the money and ensuring the poten-
tial to borrow more. Smith’s self-interest is best met by loaning the money and ensuring his
potential to borrow from you. The deontologist, on the other hand, says that you have made a
promise to Smith—to pay him back—and that one should keep one’s promises; not out of self-
interest, but because it is the right thing to do. (We can determine that it is the right thing to do
by looking at it from the perspective of the Golden Rule or from the perspective of Kant, who
would suggest that morality requires that promises be kept.) Meanwhile, the utilitarian might
say there are various outcomes, but paying back the loan will certainly create a utility calcula-
tion that would not be lower than any of the other outcomes. Presumably, being honest and
keeping one’s promises are virtues—at least if done appropriately and in moderation—so the
virtue ethicist will also insist that the money be paid back. As we see, then, the ethical egoist,
the deontologist, the utilitarian, and the virtue ethicist all agree that the promise should be kept,
but they arrive at that conclusion from very different directions.

However, these theories may not always agree so nicely. Consider marriage vows, in which
partners promise to love, cherish, honor, and obey, among other things, “till death do us part.”
Despite the fact this promise is binding and often made before God, it is not always kept. Pre-
sumably, people make this promise fully intending to keep it, but circumstances change. Assum-
ing one or both members of a marriage are sufficiently miserable to end it, the utilitarian would
probably conclude that doing so would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. The
deontologist might say that although promises should never be made lightly, the Kantian “uni-
versality requirement”—that we act in such a way that it would always be the right thing to
do in those circumstances—could be taken to mean that ending the marriage is the right thing
to do. The virtue ethicist would probably argue that keeping a promise to remain married, if it
makes one or both of those people miserable, is immoderate and fails to recognize that it is
sometimes appropriate to break promises. In this case, however, one can also see that others
might argue that a utility calculation, an application of the categorical imperative, or the virtue
of honesty might require the marriage to continue.

Thus, ethical theories might not only conflict with each other, but may even conflict with com-
mon sense. For instance, if one interprets Kant as saying that promises must never be broken,
then it would violate his ethical principle to dissolve the marriage, even if it condemns both
people to abject misery for the rest of their lives. This also shows that ethical theories are not
really “recipes” that guarantee a certain and reliable ethical outcome. Instead, they can offer
guidance for ascertaining right and wrong, so long as we understand that their application may
change depending on a situation’s specifics.

Free Speech

In the United States specifically, a number of political and ethical questions arise from how one
interprets the Constitution. It will be helpful to see a specific example of this from the Bill of
Rights. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohib-
iting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 199 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

The questions this raises about religion—whether what is known is the “establishment” clause
or the “free exercise” clause—are pretty well known. However, the questions of the freedom of
speech and of the press raise issues that are also worth looking at, in terms of constitutionally pro-
tected rights, and what our ethical theories might say about when those rights might be violated.

As we saw with the issue of promises, we probably start with an assumption that free speech, for
individuals and for the media (or press), cannot be prohibited without a very good reason. In other
words, free speech is always assumed to be protected unless legitimate reasons can be provided.

Yelling “Fire!”
The most famous example of when free speech can be prohibited comes from the Supreme
Court case Schenck v. United States (1919), in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted that
one should not be allowed to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. The reason is that falsely indicat-
ing there is a fire could cause panic and put people in danger as they all rush toward the exits.
Holmes’s reasoning sounds utilitarian: Even if the person yelling “Fire!” gets some degree of
pleasure from doing so, everyone else is at risk of psychological trauma and physical injury. Thus,
the greatest good for the greatest number demands prohibiting this kind of speech. The deon-
tologist, who rejects lying on principle, would agree with Holmes’s conclusion, pointing out that
falsely yelling “Fire!” is a lie. As we have seen before, two different ethical theories come to the
same conclusion, though for different reasons.

Even those who advocate the greatest amount of free speech recognize that in this specific case,
the harm caused outweighs the right to say whatever one wishes. There are other such restric-
tions recognized in the law: One cannot threaten the life of the president, for example, nor freely
joke about bombs or hijacking while in an airport. Most people recognize these as legitimate
restrictions to the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

Freedom for Speech We Do Not Like
Real life presents many situations in which one person’s right to say something may violate
another person’s right not to hear (or see) it. For instance, there are various laws that regulate
pornography’s production, distribution, and sale. Should adults be able to take whatever kind
of pictures they want and sell them to another adult? Some argue that to prevent them from
doing so is a restriction on free speech; others argue that pornography objectifies women (treat-
ing them solely as a means to an end, not as ends in themselves, in Kantian language) in ways
that can lead to violence, sexual abuse, rape, and other immoral and illegal acts, and thus should
not qualify as protected speech. Even though most people agree that child pornography should
be illegal (as it is in the United States), what about a novel that depicts a pornographic scenario
involving a child? Should consenting adults be allowed to write and read such novels?

Great Ideas: Bradley Manning, Daniel Ellsberg,
and Free Speech

In 2010 soldier Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was arrested on charges that he had passed classified
material to a website known as Wikileaks. In 2013 Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges
he faced, though many debate whether he should be regarded as a hero or a traitor for exposing
national secrets.

(continued)

mos81165_06_c06.indd 200 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

Many other such cases have arisen in which one per –
son’s right to free speech conflicts with another
person’s desire—possibly legitimate desire—to pre-
vent that speech. Should high school students be
allowed to wear T-shirts that other students—or
teachers—find offensive? Should a person be allowed
to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government?
Should a person be allowed to design a Web page
calling for the murder of physicians who provide
abortion services? Should a student be allowed to
pray in school? Should such schools allow or prevent
such prayers at official school functions such as foot-
ball games or graduations? We may want to protect
religious speech, but what if one person’s religious
speech offends another person’s religious beliefs? Is
there a danger of a majority trampling the rights of
a minority?

Ethical theories do not provide exact formulas for
solving such debates. How might a utilitarian respond
to these kinds of cases? How might a deontologist
respond? Would they agree? Would they disagree?
How would they support their conclusions? Would it
depend on the circumstances of the case? If so, does
that prevent us from developing a sufficiently general
notion of morality, as expressed in the Golden Rule
or the “greatest net good for the greatest number”
principle of utilitarianism?

Great Ideas: Bradley Manning, Daniel Ellsberg,
and Free Speech (continued)

Manning is not the first American to make government secrets public; in 1971 Daniel Ellsberg leaked
the now famous Pentagon Papers, which revealed numerous problems about the prosecution of the
Vietnam War.

Are such leaks justified? Some suggest that without them, government malfeasance and incompe-
tence would be much harder to discover; others argue that the government must withhold certain
information from the public for reasons of national security.

Reflection Questions:

1. Can revealing government secrets ever be justified?
2. Can revealing government secrets ever lead to more benefits than maintaining those

secrets?
3. Defend your answers to numbers 1 and 2 using a version of utilitarianism.

Steve Senne/

Associated Press

A high school in Rhode Island displayed this
school prayer banner in their auditorium
until one of its students, an atheist,
requested the school take it down. She
argued that the banner was offensive to
non-Christians.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 201 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics
Greed

Earlier we saw that ethical egoism calls into question some of the traditional philosophical and
religious objections against selfishness and its end result, greed. Here we will explore whether
there is any conflict between what traditional views say about greed and certain principles
underlying a capitalist economy.

In director Oliver Stone’s 1987 film Wall Street, a wealthy investor named Gordon Gekko makes
a speech that is now probably better known than the movie itself. He declares:

Greed—for lack of a better word—is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed
clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed,
in all of its forms—greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked
the upward surge of mankind. (Pressman & Stone, 1987)

As we saw briefly, in economic exchanges between two people, each wants the very most he or
she can get. If John wants to buy something from Mary, he wants the most he can get for the
least amount of money, and Mary wants the greatest amount of money she can get while giving
up the least. This desire for getting the most for the least is often considered the way we should
(and do) act. Traditionally, however, wanting as much as possible of something was regarded as
being greedy. In contrast to Gordon Gekko, one might consider this passage from the Gospel
according to Saint Luke: “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life
does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). Indeed, many religious tradi-
tions regard greed—sometimes called avarice, covetousness, or cupidity—as a sin. Gekko says
“greed is good”; Saint Luke says “greed is bad.” Presumably, they cannot both be right.

With the exception of ethical egoism, Saint Luke seems to be backed up by traditional ethical
theories. Returning to our sandbox with four children and one toy: The greedy child wants the
toy all to him- or herself. The utilitarian will reject this as failing to generate the greatest good for
the greatest number, whereas the deontologist will point out that this is not the kind of act that
would always be the right thing to do. It is probably safe to assume that Saint Luke approved
of the Golden Rule, and we can simply apply it by asking the greedy child: “Would you like it
if some other greedy child took the toy and did not allow anyone else—including you—to play
with it?” The virtue ethicist would see such greed as an extreme: We may desire to have certain
things, but those desires should be moderate. Perhaps we should not desire too little, which
would be an extreme of self-sacrifice, but the extreme of desiring too much is greed, and thus
virtue ethics would reject it.

Does this mean our ethical theories are in fundamental conflict with our economic theories?
In many ways, Gordon Gekko summarized how capitalism works. A business wants to sell the
most goods or offer the most services at the highest prices it can charge, and it wants to capture
the largest market share. Its competitors want to do the same thing. Its customers, on the other
hand, want to get the most goods or services for the lowest prices they can find and will go
to a company’s competitors to do so. There exists, then, competition between customers and
companies, and the end result is that customers get the best price, companies that make the
best product have the highest profits, and companies that charge too much or produce goods
or services of lower quality go out of business. So it is possible that acting in one’s self-interest
(whether as company or customer) reveals that maybe Gordon Gekko is right. Greed is good!

There are some legal restrictions that prevent certain types of greed. Agencies such as the Food
and Drug Administration ensure that companies do not take shortcuts on products that might

mos81165_06_c06.indd 202 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

Classic Vision/age footstock/SuperStock

An enduring contribution of philosopher
Ludwig Feuerbach is the observation that
“you are what you eat.”

make consumers ill. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division supports competition
among companies and works to prevent monopolies. The U.S. government has sued both IBM
and Microsoft for operating as monopolies. Thus, there are some rules that prevent absolute,
unrestricted greed. However, that does not mean that companies (or customers) should not act
in their own financial best interest.

It unclear how ethical theories treat this apparent conflict between business practice and moral
values. Perhaps one might say that in certain contexts greed is good, whereas in other contexts
it is wrong. Perhaps the term greedy is not adequate for describing entities or individuals who
seek the biggest profits or the lowest prices. Or we might say that businesses should not follow
the same moral code as individuals. We should also consider that many outrageously profitable
companies have also made substantial charitable contributions and supported worthy causes.
Cynics might suggest that companies do this to improve their public image or for a tax deduc-
tion, which would then beg the question of whether a company’s reasons for giving to charity
mattered.

In any case we see the difficulty in applying ethical theory. While not many parents would teach
their child the merits of being greedy, how would we explain to the child how the business
world works? The difficulty is illustrated by imagining the child to ask, “So, should I be greedy
or should I not be greedy?”

Vegetarianism

Ethical questions can arise from even the most ordinary activities, such as eating. A once famous,
now somewhat forgotten German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) once observed,
“You are what you eat” (1864). We are all familiar with the notion that a healthful diet is impor-
tant and that those who eat foods high in saturated fat, cholesterol and trans fats are at greater

risk for stroke, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and
other health problems. But aside from health issues,
can there be ethical issues involved with diet? From
one perspective, what people eat may reflect their
relationship to the rest of nature and the extent to
which they seek to be in some kind of harmony with
nature. Another perspective considers how our food
is produced and whether it forces sentient beings to
experience cruelty and pain. Should we care if our
food is borne from the pain and suffering of other
animals? Should we want to know more about the
process, or is it acceptable to be ignorant of how our
food is produced? The German politician Otto von
Bismarck once pointed out that one cannot enjoy
politics or sausage if one closely observes how either
is made. Would someone continue to enjoy eating
meat if he or she knew how the animal from which it
came was raised?

We might begin addressing this issue by identifying
the extreme positions relative to food. At one end
of the spectrum, there is the extreme omnivore: a
person who eats anything and everything he or she

mos81165_06_c06.indd 203 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

wants and does not care about how that food is produced. At the other end of the spectrum
is the extreme vegan, a person who refuses to eat any animal products or by-products such as
butter, eggs, cheese, honey, or food containing these, such as pastas and breads. Few people
adopt either such extreme: Even an extreme omnivore might (we hope) draw the line at eating
human flesh, and an extreme vegan may be willing to eat some things, such as yeast or apples,
even though it may be difficult to determine whether yeast is in the relevant sense of “alive,”
and often apples are glazed with a shellac made from insects.

Great Ideas: Are You What You Eat?

Which of the following would you definitely eat? Which would you possibly eat? Are there any items
in this list you would never eat? What kind of reasons did you use to distinguish among the three
categories?

• Cat
• Dog
• Chimpanzee
• Chicken
• Rat
• Pig
• Squirrel

• Horse
• Soybean
• Lobster
• Cockroach
• Bonobo
• Rabbit
• Spider

• Human
• Cow
• Dolphin
• Octopus
• Snail
• Grapes

Take one of the foods you would possibly eat and justify your choice using one of the ethical theories
discussed in this chapter.

Within these extremes is a wide range of positions. Some carnivores do not eat red meat (beef,
pork, and sometimes duck) but only chicken and fish. Some vegetarians eat eggs, cheese, and
butter, and others make an exception for fish. Some people say they will not eat anything with
a personality or anything with a face! What people are willing to consume may depend on their
culture or religion: In some cultures, eating pork is thought to be not just revolting but a violation
of strict religious dietary laws. In the United States many are repulsed by the idea of eating dogs
or chimpanzees, but other cultures may eat both without giving it any more thought than some
Americans would to eating a pork chop.

Speciesism
Can ethicists offer any guidance on determining the right thing to do (or eat)? Ethicist Peter
Singer (b. 1946) has famously argued from the perspective of utilitarianism that animals—includ-
ing humans—deserve some degree of respect because they have “interests.” Singer rejects the
idea that human interests are somehow superior to those of other sentient beings. Minimally,
all animals seek pleasure and avoid pain. We assume, with some good evidence, that rocks
do not feel pain but that cats do. Singer believes that we should take this pain into consider-
ation. To do otherwise is what he calls speciesism, which ignores the interests (and suffering)
of other species. Singer thinks speciesism is no more defensible than racism or sexism. Singer

mos81165_06_c06.indd 204 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Individual Issues in Ethics

Read Peter
Singer’s “All
Animals Are
Equal” in

the Chapter
Readings
section of the
Appendix.

(1975) concludes that respecting the greatest good for the greatest number—the greatest
number of sentient beings, that is—offers an argument in favor of vegetarianism or even
veganism.

Singer’s position may be extreme, and his views are controversial. However, supporters
of his view argue that food production methods inflict needless pain and cruelty. For
example, veal is often produced by taking a calf from its mother at birth and raising it in
a small crate in which it cannot turn around or lie down comfortably. The calf is never
allowed any exercise and is fed a milk substitute so that it will produce a prized pink flesh
when it is slaughtered between 12 and 23 weeks of age. Factory-farmed chickens are kept
in small cages, often along with tens of thousands of other chickens; they frequently have
their beaks removed and are injected with growth-producing drugs that make them so fat
they cannot stand up. The crowded conditions also generate a great deal of disease that
quickly spreads from chicken to chicken. These and other methods for raising animals for
food have been criticized for inflicting an unacceptable level of pain.

This is an interesting ethical issue that many people prefer to ignore. It is, after all, consid-
erably easier to enjoy fried chicken if one does not know what the chicken experienced.
Of course, there are many who argue that eating meat itself is not wrong as long as one’s
meat does not comes from large-scale factory farms.

Virtue ethics might make a compelling case on this issue: that one should prevent any cru-
elty that can be avoided and that a moderate approach might include some meat but not
too much, or perhaps meat of some kinds but not others. Aristotle recommended eating
“clear meats,” by which he seemed to mean poultry and fish. It is interesting to consider
whether this course of action might be in agreement with some versions of utilitarianism
(though not Singer’s) as well as some versions of deontology. To be sure, ethical theory
is not, generally, going to determine what we eat, but it might make us pause and think
about whether we have good reasons for eating what we do.

Euthanasia

Ethics can raise troubling questions not only about seemingly ordinary activities like eating,
but also its most difficult and mysterious ones, such as death. Suppose Richard’s wife of
40 years, Elizabeth, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Elizabeth, who is in her
70s, has been told by several different physicians that the disease is unquestionably ter-
minal; she can expect to live at most another 18 months, over which time she will experi-
ence increasing levels of pain. Drugs can minimize the pain but not fully relieve it. As the
weeks go by, Elizabeth experiences increasingly agonizing pain. Her doctor has given her
the strongest drugs available, and in massive doses, but they seem not to work. Through
it all, Richard has to helplessly watch his wife suffer.

In this type of case, some ethicists (such as James Rachels; 1941–2003) have argued for
euthanasia (from the Greek for “good death”), or the right to die. The argument is
straightforward: A person who is virtually certain to die within a given amount of time
and is experiencing or will experience a lot of pain before he or she dies should be able
to choose an earlier, less painful death. What purpose is served by keeping a person alive
only to experience constant, agonizing pain? This argument is also used to support phy-
sician-assisted suicide (PAS), which is slightly different from euthanasia. In PAS a doctor

mos81165_06_c06.indd 205 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section

6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

Read James
Rachels’s
“Active

and Passive
Euthanasia”

in the
Chapter
Readings

section of the
Appendix.

Read
Philippa
Foot’s

“Killing
and Letting
Die” in the

Chapter
Readings
section of the
Appendix.

provides a patient with a lethal dose of medication or another way of causing death, but
the patient, not the doctor, ends his or her own life. Some countries, such as Netherlands
and Belgium, have made PAS legal. Oregon legalized PAS in 1997; the Supreme Court
upheld Oregon’s “death with dignity” law as constitutional in 2006, and it has since
become legal in Washington and Vermont.

Some of the opposition to euthanasia and PAS comes from an insistence that there is a
difference between killing people and letting them die, as was suggested by philosopher
Philippa Foot (1984) in her work “Killing and Letting Die.” Other opposition is grounded
in religion. In this view, life is a precious gift from God. To end it prematurely is to reject
that gift; only God should determine when life should end. As Saint Thomas Aquinas put
it, “Whoever takes his own life sins against God.” According to some religious traditions,
suicide indicates a lack of trust in God and a rejection of God’s plan. Other nonreligious
objections to PAS are based on the potential consequences of its legalization: that it could
inspire a catastrophic lack of respect for life; that family members or physicians might pres-
sure patients to end their lives prematurely; or that a person may end his or her life not
because of terminal illness but due to a treatable condition such as depression.

Assuming Elizabeth has PAS available as an option, she and her husband still confront
an extremely difficult decision, one that has to be made under the most challenging cir-
cumstances. Even though ethics may help clarify what is at stake, it may not ultimately
be able to design a satisfactory solution. Also, the effects of such ethical decisions may
not always be limited to the individual. If Elizabeth terminates her life via PAS, her decision
affects many others and is representative of just one view within her larger society. Others
may condemn her decision on the basis of their own ethical or religious views, though it
is questionable whether they have the right to insist their views be the basis of universally
enforced laws. We probably do not think kosher laws—such as the prohibition on eating
pork—should be imposed on those who do not keep kosher. Should a Roman Catholic’s
view be imposed on someone who does not share such beliefs or even actively rejects
them?

Many argue that a compromise is to continue to develop drugs and other forms of pallia-
tive care—treatment that reduces suffering—to alleviate a terminally ill person’s anguish.
The hospice movement emphasizes the reduction of end-of-life suffering and promotes
death with dignity, and it has thus become an increasingly attractive option for those who
resist endorsing PAS.

6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

Ethical theory can do a great deal to clarify what is at stake and help us better evaluate our choices. It can be challenging, however, to distinguish between ethical questions that confront individuals and those that involve large parts or even all of society. This
is the focus of our next discussion. Because these questions affect everyone, we must
consider how everyone’s voices can be integrated into solutions, or why, perhaps, such
solutions should be left to experts. We will conclude by considering whether we can truly
make sense of the distinction between individual and social ethical decisions.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 206 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

Animal Rights

We touched on the question of animal rights when discussing ethical issues related to eating
meat and vegetarianism. Ethics can also help us navigate other issues in the relationship between
humans and animals. As we consider some of these, recall that humans are of course animals.
Too frequently animal rights discussions proceed in terms of the contrast between humans and
animals. We may be different kinds of animals, or possess qualities other animals do not; but we
also have a number of things in common with the rest of the animal kingdom. Here, however,
we will use “animals” to refer to the nonhuman kind.

What We Have in Common
For centuries the distinction between humans and animals was taken for granted, and a sharp
line between them was easily drawn. René Descartes, for instance, regarded animals as simply
physical bodies that lacked minds or souls; thus, animals were similar to organic machines. This
is in line with a long history of Western and Christian thinking. Another aspect of that tradition,
sometimes called the great chain of being, ranks all things from highest to lowest: God, followed
by the angels, then human beings, then other animals, then plants. There are a number of dis-
tinctions within these categories as well; some cultures or societies rank kings higher than other
humans, men higher than women, some classes of angels above others, and some even rank
certain plants above others, so that the oak tree is superior to the yew tree.

In contemporary times, however, research and interaction with some species such as cetaceans
(whales, dolphins) and primates (chimpanzees, bonobos) make drawing the line between human
beings and other animals more difficult. Research has indicated that nonhuman animals may do
many of the things once regarded as uniquely human, such as make tools, develop plans, grieve,
remember, and use language. In addition, biologists have demonstrated that human DNA and
chimpanzee DNA overlap between 95% and 98%. Primatologists have suggested that the DNA
of bonobos overlaps with human DNA to an even greater extent (Navin, Thomas, NISC Com-
parative Sequencing Program, & Yi, 2006). In light of these discoveries, some have proposed the
propensity for religion, the ability to pretend, the sense of time, and even essential differences in
the brain as qualities that makes humans unique.

Great Ideas: Are There Limits to the Way
We Treat Animals?

Given the account of animal sentience, intelligence, and their ability to feel pain, are there any animals
you would hesitate to submit to drug or product testing if those tests involved experiencing severe
levels of pain and then death?

Reflection Questions:

1. Identify one nonhuman animal you would approve of and one you would object to being
used for such testing.

2. Identify the differences that informed your response.
3. If you cannot name one animal in each category—either because you see no differences

or because you think no animals should be treated this way—explain what your position
implies for other ways animals are treated.

4. If all animals could be treated in the way described, does that mean there is no such thing
as “cruelty to animals”?

5. If no animals should be treated in the way described, what does that imply about how
humans test drugs for their safety and efficacy?

mos81165_06_c06.indd 207 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

One could conclude that drawing the line between human beings and other animals is arbitrary
and depends on controversial criteria. For instance, would it seem odd to give crabs or mice the
same respect we might think bonobos and dolphins deserve? If the line all the way from human
beings to, say, bacteria is continuous and without any gaps, then anywhere we draw the line will
be controversial and, to a certain extent, involve guesswork. One solution is to simply distinguish
humans from other animals, but that seems more an assumption rather than a defensible position.

Where Do We Draw the Line?
Drawing this line is essential to the question of animal rights. Cultures vary on their acceptance
of acts done with and to animals, such as making clothes and shoes from their body parts;
testing pharmaceuticals and perfumes on them; and even watching them fight to the death
for entertainment or sport. For example, many Americans objected strongly when professional
football player Michael Vick was involved in dogfighting. Yet other countries regularly stage bull-
fights, which often conclude with a ritualized death of the bull. In the United States some groups
object to raising, killing, and skinning animals for fur, whereas others regard such criticism as too
sensitive. Does the fact that people need safe, effective drugs mean that chimpanzees should be
subjected to medical testing? One such test, called the Draize test, applies a substance (a cos-
metic or other product) to an animal that is restrained and conscious; scientists then record the
substance’s effects (burning, toxicity, and so on). Is this test necessary or useful?

Responses to these issues often depend on our relationship to other animals. As Descartes pro-
posed, if we recognize humans as unique and all other animals as inferior, there is no obvious
problem in treating other animals as we wish. On the other hand, those who propose that we
draw the line at sentience (as does Peter Singer) would have a problem with testing on animals,
using animal products, bullfighting, and even eating honey or using leather products. Some-
where in between may be a response that many find satisfactory—a compromise that says tor-
turing animals for perfume or fur is unnecessary but that subjecting them to tests that improve
human life and health is acceptable. This compromise incorporates the idea that cruelty to other
animals not only inflicts needless pain and suffering but also says a good bit about those who
are willing to inflict that pain and suffering.

The Environment

Many ethical issues are also political ones, meaning that many choices we make as individuals
significantly affect the larger community. At the same time, the community imposes restrictions
and laws that limit our choices as individuals, often for good reason. Few would oppose laws that
require everyone to stop at red lights or drive in the same direction on the same side of the road.

One set of political or social issues is known as environmental ethics. This is the study of obli-
gations and values relating to the environment, including any human obligations and values.
Many philosophers and religious traditions have considered the relationship between human
beings and the environment. Aristotle suggested that all things are made by nature for human
beings; that is, the value of things is what they can produce for humans. Genesis 1:26 states,
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Some have interpreted the notion
of dominion to mean that humans are masters of the earth and can do with it what they please.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 208 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

In this view, nature is an instrument to achieve other human goals and is therefore said to pos-
sess “instrumental value.” Thus, just as a spoon may have instrumental value in allowing me
to achieve my goal of eating, the group of plants that produces digitalis may have instrumental
value in the medicine they can create for patients with heart conditions. Of course, something
also has value if people get pleasure and enjoyment from it, and so one would be able to say
that a particularly vibrant sunset has instrumental value in providing the pleasure humans get
from experiencing it.

More recently, however, many environmental ethicists have argued that things other than human
beings have intrinsic value, meaning that they have value in themselves and not for some other
purpose. This view rejects the assumption that only human beings possess intrinsic value and
argues that other things have a right to exist not solely because of some human purpose they
serve but simply because they are part of nature and the universe. This is a controversial view, and
one that is in fact quite old. Many religious traditions regard the earth as a sacred gift that must
be cared for and protected. This seems to be the idea expressed in Ezekiel 34:18: “Seemeth it a
small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet
the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue
with your feet?” Many Native American traditions have also regarded the relationship between
people and their environment as sacred. As one ancient Native American proverb states:

Treat the earth well.

It was not given to you by your parents,

it was loaned to you by your children.

We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors,

we borrow it from our Children.

Thus, we have two distinct ways of interpreting the relationship between human beings and their
environment. One regards the environment as possessing solely instrumental value (although
this does not necessarily endorse the idea of using it however one pleases); the other regards the
environment as possessing intrinsic value, thus preventing it from being treated simply instru-
mentally and requiring respect. Of course, there are many different interpretations of each of
these positions, as well as positions that seek some degree of compromise between them, or
even combine the two views. We can contrast the two perspectives more clearly with a specific
example.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 209 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

Great Ideas: Ethics, Economics, and the Environment

You are the CEO of Smith Petroleum. Large amounts of oil have been discovered in the middle of Yel-
lowstone National Park. The oil industry claims that the reserves in Yellowstone will lower gas prices
in the United States by 10 cents a gallon and create at least 10,000 new jobs. Both private environ-
mental groups and federal agencies, however, have described the environmental damage posed by
the drilling as “catastrophic.”

The decision to drill is entirely yours to make. Before you answer the following questions, you may
wish to visit this link:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm

Reflection Questions:

1. What is your decision?
2. How do you justify your decision from an economic and environmental standpoint?
3. What ethical issues are involved?
4. If you decided to drill, how do you respond to someone who claims that Yellowstone’s rock

formations are both enormous and irreplaceable?
5. What are the costs and benefits involved in your decision? Are they solely economic costs

and benefits, or are there other factors you must consider?
6. Does your view change on this when you remember that occasionally oil companies have

made predictions that were overly optimistic?

Ethics of Extinction
Consider the dwarf wedge mussel, an aquatic mollusk found exclusively on the Atlantic coast
of North America. This mussel has become extinct in Canada and is severely endangered in the
United States. It has very little obvious use to human beings. It does not seem to provide any
particularly essential medicinal value, is not eaten, and does not offer much in terms of aesthetic
value or beauty to human observers since it spends most of its time buried completely in the
bottom of streams and rivers.

This animal’s survival may well depend on whether it is regarded in terms of possessing instru-
mental or intrinsic value. Those who see little use for it may not particularly care if it goes extinct,
beyond some possible repercussions in the rest of the food chain. However, the instrumentalist
perspective would suggest that if the mussel plays a crucial role in its ecosystem that affects the
fishing industry, this might be reason enough to prevent the mussel’s extinction. (Some instru-
mentalists tend to err on the side of caution in these cases, recognizing that human beings may
not always be wholly aware of what value a given organism might have; it might be something
that has yet to be discovered.)

The intrinsic perspective does not need to specify some value or product the mussel offers
human beings; its existence as part of an environmental subsystem gives it intrinsic value. We
should simply do what is reasonable to protect the mussel and prevent its extinction out of our
respect for the earth in general and this little part of it specifically. Some might think it is silly to
protect such an odd little critter. Others may argue not protecting it is silly. For example, suppose
a major threat to this mussel is chemical runoff from golf courses. Are we genuine stewards of
an environment if we allow species to go extinct in order to preserve the right to hit a small white
ball relatively large distances with the goal of placing it in a hole that is 4.25 inches in diameter?

mos81165_06_c06.indd 210 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

Population growth, the economic and technological development of large countries such as
India and China, and the difficulty in determining the costs and benefits of specific economic and
developmental policies are all other issues that fall under this category. Humans have become
considerably more aware that resources are finite, and many environmental ethicists insist that
we realize we are dependent on the earth and not treat it as a source of riches to exploit and
plunder. Some have likened the earth to a spaceship on which humans are traveling. From that
perspective, the earth looks more like a home to be cared for than a department or grocery store
from which we take things without regard to the consequences.

The Personal and the Political

We began by looking at certain kinds of behavior—keeping promises, end of life issues, even
determining what to eat—that seem to be based on individual choices that more or less only
affect the person who makes them (obviously, if one breaks a promise, it affects the person to
whom the promise was made). We then considered more general ethical questions that affect
whole communities. Here we will conclude our discussion of ethics by looking at the distinction
between the individual and society, a line that is not easily drawn.

Consider “victimless crimes” (sometimes called consensual crimes), activities that are against the
law but do not physically harm a person or property, or were voluntarily (consensually) entered
into. Examples of victimless crimes include smoking marijuana, failing to wear seat belts and
motorcycle helmets, committing suicide, as well as engaging in prostitution, sodomy, or bungee
jumping. The question is whether the state, or society, has the right to prevent a person from
engaging in such activities. Those who stress minimal state involvement and emphasize a libertar-
ian approach to state authority suggest that drug laws, pornography laws, curfews for teenagers,
and even driver’s licenses are beyond the legitimate scope of what government can legislate.

Victimless crimes help clarify government’s legitimate role and also demonstrate that society’s rules
can change over time. For instance, many states had laws against sodomy for decades. Even though
sodomy is a general term used to describe
nonreproductive sex acts—acts that can-
not lead to reproduction—sodomy laws
were generally enforced only against
homosexuals. Such laws were ruled
unconstitutional in the United States in
2003 but are still found in other coun-
tries’ legal codes. Another example are
sumptuary laws, which were designed to
prevent extravagant consumption. The
Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example,
prohibited people who did not have sub-
stantial wealth from wearing lace, hat-
bands, belts, or capes.

Laws that prohibit activities that are
very common and widely accepted may
not effectively curb behavior, and may
even worsen it. Many have argued that
the ban on alcohol during Prohibition
(1919–1933) was both widely ignored

Associated Press

It is sometimes argued that banning a victimless crime
could generate more victims than the banned activity. An
example is the 18th Amendment banning alcohol in the
United States. Prohibition gave rise to organized crime
and gangsters like Lucky Luciano, shown here at right.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 211 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Social Issues in Ethics

Read Virginia
Held’s

“Feminist
Transfor-
mations
of Moral

Theory” in
the Chapter

Readings
section of the
Appendix.

and allowed criminals to develop powerful criminal organizations. If this objection is cor-
rect, then banning the victimless crime of drinking alcohol generated more victims than
drinking itself would have caused.

From a different perspective, however, it has been argued that many so-called victim-
less crimes cannot be removed from their social context. Take as an example Al, whose
occasional yet illegal marijuana use seems to harm no one but himself (and it is debat-
able whether he is even doing that). Those defending this law might argue that Al and
everyone else who violates the laws against marijuana financially support drug cartels
and criminals who have corrupted governments, murdered police officers, politicians, and
judges, supported terrorism, and numerous other serious crimes. From this perspective,
we may want to ask if Al’s marijuana habit is in fact a victimless crime or if the larger con-
text in which he buys marijuana must be considered.

Prostitution is another so-called victimless activity prohibited in some countries (such as
the United States, except in a small part of Nevada). Two distinct issues arise here: whether
engaging in sex as a prostitute or a customer should be illegal and whether the victims—if
there are any—are the result of the activity or a result of the activity being illegal. The lib-
ertarian perspective argues that prostitution involves a voluntary, consensual agreement
between two adults in which the government has no legitimate right to interfere. Those
who oppose legal prostitution argue that prostitutes face a wide variety of dangers from
both customers and pimps, including rape and battery. They also argue that many prosti-
tutes sell sex out of economic necessity, and thus it should not be regarded as voluntary.
Furthermore, many impoverished and desperate young women are sold against their will
into prostitution. How we describe the situation may determine our moral evaluation of it.

The relationship between the personal and the political is an issue that Virginia Held con-
fronts in her article about feminist responses to ethical theory. The personal realm has
often been aligned with the feminine while the political has often been aligned with
the masculine. Women are thought of as participating in the life of the home (the per-
sonal) while men have been thought to lead the life of the state (political). Held examines
assumptions about the role of women in society and the ways that women are working
in the ethical tradition to provide a feminine voice in a world that is dominated by the
masculine.

As we have seen, some activities that were once illegal have become legal, or at least
“decriminalized,” presumably due to society’s changing standards. Perhaps this means, as
the saying goes, that “you cannot legislate morality,” meaning that the state simply is not
good at legislating ethical choices. However, we legislate morality all the time. A society
legislates against murder on the assumption that it is wrong. No one responds to the fact
that people continue to murder each other by recommending that we get rid of laws that
make murder illegal. Ethics provides some guidance but offers no clear-cut set of rules to
determine an answer on which everyone will agree. Ethics can clarify how we determine
the relationship between the individual citizen and their society. Is it a laissez-faire society?
Or is it a society that exerts its power to ensure that all its members are treated fairly and
given equal access to opportunity? How we answer that question plays an important role
in how we look at a society’s laws, rules, and informal policies. That answer will in turn
help us evaluate the morality of the various activities in which people and communities
engage.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 212 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section

6.5 Summary and Resources

Chapter Highlights

• Philosophers have developed substantial and complex approaches to solving ethical
issues, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

• Other ethical views, known as metaethics, raise significant questions about how the
discipline of ethics should be understood.

• Applying ethical theory to specific problems reveals that a more rigorous understanding
of those theories can help clarify those problems though not necessarily offer solutions.

Philosopher Vignette:

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill was born in a London suburb in 1806. His
father, James Mill, undertook his education, and John began
study of Greek at the age of 3 and Latin at the age of 8. By the
time he was getting ready for what most would call the fresh-
man year of high school, Mill had read most of the ancient clas-
sics and intensely studied history, mathematics, and economics.
At the age of 20, Mill suffered from serious depression that he
attributed to his rigorously analytical education. Mill connected
to his emotions through the poetry of William Wordsworth, and
over time his depression faded.

In 1830 Mill met Harriet Taylor. Taylor was married at the time,
but they began a friendship that ultimately led to marriage 21
years later. It is generally believed that Mill and Taylor’s relation-
ship was platonic until Taylor’s husband died. They were married
two years after Taylor’s husband’s death. Mill found great com-
fort and inspiration in their relationship. He felt such a strong emotional and intellectual connection
to her that, after her tragic death in 1858, he spent half of each year for the rest of his life in Avignon,
France, just to be close to her grave. He was ultimately buried next to her when he died in 1873.

Mill’s relationship with Taylor changed his views about the ends that ought to be pursued in the realm
of human happiness and well-being. Mill believed in gender equality, and he worked with Taylor to
complete his work On the Subjection of Women, an extended argument that attempts to expand the
notion of women’s rights and criticizes some of the restrictions and obstacles women faced.

Mill wrote on a wide array of philosophical topics, including logic, politics, equality, economics, reli-
gion, and ethics. He is best known for Utilitarianism, in which he attempts to refine the definition of
utilitarianism, define its ultimate aims, and refute arguments against it. Mill’s ethical system is based
on the principle (what he calls “the greatest happiness principle”) that the best action is the one that
creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Mill—along with American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce—is widely considered to be the most
important English-speaking philosopher of the 19th century. His views on gender equality and social
welfare were ahead of his time. His writings reflect a keen intellect that was able to incisively and
clearly break down problems and brilliantly present his own arguments and positions. Mill sought to
bring about a better world, one in which all humans enjoyed equality and pursued the pleasures of
the mind. His works paved the way for much of our current thinking about justice, equality, and social
harmony.

Photos.com/© Getty Images/Thinkstock

John Stuart Mill

mos81165_06_c06.indd 213 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Summary and Resources

Case Study: Lifeboat Ethics

In the 1974 article “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin presents an
ethical thought experiment regarding the issue of the environment and resource distribution around
the world. Hardin’s primary question is whether all humans have an equal right to an equal share of
the earth’s resources. He suggests that we imagine the rich countries of the world as lifeboats. Each
lifeboat represents a country’s resources (land, clean water, resources used for profit, oil, etc.). The
more resources a country has, the bigger its boat. In the water surrounding each lifeboat are people
swimming. These swimmers represent the world’s poor people. Suppose our lifeboat is called the
United States and has 60 seats total, 50 of which are taken. Around the boat are 100 swimmers. How
do we determine to whom to give the 10 remaining seats?

Hardin claims that the first option is to try applying Christian or Marxist philosophy. In these cases we
would have to take everyone into our boat, as each person is no more important than any other, and
all deserve to be saved. However, having 150 people in a boat designed for 60 means that the boat
will fall apart or capsize, and everyone will drown.

The second option is to choose 10 people from the 100 swimmers to allow onto the boat. But how to
choose? Will we choose those who are first? The neediest? Those with the best rowing or boat-repair
skills? We must also consider that once we fill all the seats, we lose our “safety factor.” With 10 seats
still open, we have room to move people around or seat new passengers that are born on the boat.
Or, should we lose a part of our ship, the 50 passengers would still be safe because of the 10 empty
seats. Hardin claims that it is important to seat people, but it is equally important to leave some seats
open. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety and survival of all the boat’s passengers, we need to
prevent swimmers from boarding our vessel.

Hardin says that people who feel guilty for preventing swimmers from boarding the boat can give
up their spot. The swimmer who climbs into your seat will not feel badly about this turn of events.
Hardin claims that as people jump out and climb on, the boat will “purge itself” of feelings of guilt.
At some point none of the passengers will feel badly about the swimmers in the water, at least not
badly enough to give up their own seat.

Hardin uses this thought experiment to critique socialist ideals as well as the idea of a world food bank.
He believes that opening up resources to allow everyone equal access creates a “ruin of the com-
mons.” If the world established a food bank out of which poorer countries could take food when they
did not have the resources to feed their populations, the world would be taxed beyond its capacity,
which would result in even greater catastrophe. For example, suppose country X can sustain 50 mil-
lion people. However, their population has risen to 70 million over the past 10 years, and their leaders
have taken food out of the food bank to feed everyone. Suddenly, the country experiences a severe
drought, and its resources cannot be distributed quickly enough. Rather than a few hundred thousand
people dying if the population were still at 50 million, 20 million people are now in danger of dying.

At first glance, Hardin’s analysis seems callous and arbitrary. However, when further analyzed, it is
possible to see that Hardin’s underlying motivation is not only to prevent large crises like famine, but
also to create responsible citizens who understand the importance of not overly taxing the world’s
resources. Consider that 7 billion humans now live on earth, compared with 1 billion in 1818. Hardin
believed that the best world would be one in which nations kept some open seats on their lifeboats,
even when that meant letting others drown in the sea.

Reflection Questions:

1. Do you find Hardin’s analysis logistically convincing? Ethically convincing? Why or why not?
2. Does the perspective from which one confronts this issue matter in these cases? If you

were a swimmer as opposed to a passenger, would that make a difference in the way you
viewed things?

(continued)

mos81165_06_c06.indd 214 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Summary and Resources

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Identify one of the Aristotelian virtues you think is important for a moral person to
have. Describe what it would be like to have too much of this feature and what it
would be like to have too little of this feature.

2. Relativism is a very popular view. Describe a situation in which you think relativism
might not provide the best response, and explain why. If you cannot do that, explain
why that means that ultimately nothing can be called wrong, no matter how evil it
may appear.

3. Explain what kind of responsibilities the current generation has, if any, to future gen-
erations in terms of treating the environment well. If you think the current generation
has no such obligations, discuss whether the generation before you should have had
such an obligation and what the implications are if they did not.

4. When you think about the ways that you try to live an ethically good life, which ethical
theory do you think most directly aligns with the motives and/or ethical considerations
that you take into account when you make moral decisions?

5. One common critique of virtue ethics is that there is not a universal standard by which
one can judge whether or not one has achieved the virtuous characteristic. How do
you think that one can tell whether or not one has maximized a virtue in her or his
life? Which three virtues do you think are most important in your own life? Why?

6. Is it necessary to have a grounding for one’s ethical actions and beliefs, or is ethics
something that naturally emerges and that people recognize intuitively? Is there another
option?

7. Is it possible to create positive ethical beliefs in people who seem to be immoral? How
can one go about creating those dispositions and actions? Are some people just natu-
rally more ethical than others?

8. Do you think that it is acceptable to sacrifice a single person for the good of the many?
Why or why not? What if the person is a serial rapist? Does that change your view? If
so, why? What if the person is your mother? Does that change your view? If so, why?

9. Feminist philosophers have critiqued the history of ethical philosophy due to many fac-
tors. It is obvious that this history has been dominated by masculine perspectives and
philosophies. In addition, others have claimed that men tend to focus on duty, respect,
and autonomy, whereas women’s ethical thinking aligns more with responsiveness, care,
and community. Do you think that men and women think differently when it comes to
ethics? If so, what does that mean about religious and philosophical conceptions of eth-
ics that rely on a male perspective? Are they in some sense inadequate? Why?

Case Study: Lifeboat Ethics (continued)

3. What is humanity’s responsibility regarding reproduction? Is the ethical human the one who
refuses to procreate so as not to add to the world’s population? Why or why not?

4. Is there a way to create more seats in the lifeboat using no additional resources?
5. Do humans deserve the right to life, even if they have been irresponsibly brought into the

world? Why or why not?

mos81165_06_c06.indd 215 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Summary and Resources

Additional Resources

Ethical Theory

Some detailed descriptions of various ethical theories can be found here:

http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Intro/index.asp

Kantian Ethics

Nigel Warburton provides an introduction to Kantian ethics at:

http://virtualphilosopher.com

Nietzsche

A discussion of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality under the heading “Christopher Janaway on
Nietzsche on Morality” is available at:

http://www.philosophybites.com

A discussion of many of the views that have been attributed, wrongly, to Nietzsche, under the
heading “Brian Leiter on Nietzsche Myths” is available at:

http://www.philosophybites.com

Psychological and Ethical Egoism

A development of issues surrounding various versions of egoism can be found here:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

Utilitarianism

A number of discussions of ethics, including a discussion of rule utilitarianism by British
American philosopher Brad Hooker, under the title “Consequentialism” is available at:

http://www.philosophybites.com
Virtue Ethics

A 2-minute introduction to Aristotle’s virtue ethics, presented under the predictable title
“Virtue Ethics” is available here:

http://philinstall.uoregon.edu

mos81165_06_c06.indd 216 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Summary and Resources

Chapter Reading List

Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill

Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant

Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle

After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre

“Psychological Egoism,” Joel Feinberg

Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

“All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer

“Active and Passive Euthanasia,” James Rachels

“Killing and Letting Die,” Philippa Foot

“Feminist Transformations of Moral Theory,” Virginia Held

Key Terms

act utilitarianism An interpretation of
utilitarianism that focuses on a given act and
evaluates it in terms of that act generating
the greatest net good for the greatest num-
ber of people.

categorical imperative An obligation or
demand that holds for an agent without
qualification, or unconditionally.

consequentialist A type of ethical theory
that includes utilitarianism and evaluates the
morality of an act in terms of the results it
produces.

environmental ethics The study of obliga-
tions and values relating to the environment,
including any human obligations and values.

ethical egoism The ethical view that a
person should do what is in that person’s
self-interest.

eudaimonia The state of being justifiably
happy and content, particularly emphasized
in Aristotelian ethics.

euthanasia The intentional causing of death
in order relieve pain or suffering.

golden mean The appropriate place
between two extremes; in Aristotelian ethics,
virtues are those characteristics that achieve
this balance.

instrumentalist A view that ideas, con-
cepts, and other claims are valuable to the
extent that they can be used to bring about
some result.

magnanimity The virtue of having a great
soul, or the character of being nobly gener-
ous; regarded as a particularly important
virtue by Aristotle.

metaethics The study of concepts, claims,
and assumptions that ethics uses to evaluate
moral actions.

phronesis The ability to judge appropriately,
to determine what appropriate ends are
and how to achieve them; often translated
as “practical wisdom” and often associated
with Aristotle.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 217 1/6/14 2:33 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Summary and Resources

physician-assisted suicide (PAS) A pro-
cedure whereby a physician aids a patient
in ending his or her life, although the act (in
contrast to euthanasia) is carried out by the
patient.

reflective equilibrium A procedure, ide-
ally leading to the most reasonable result,
whereby reflection on various factors leads to
the fullest possible consideration of the fac-
tors underlying a decision.

rule utilitarianism An interpretation of
utilitarianism that emphasizes identifying
those rules that, when generally adopted,
will lead to the greatest net good for the
greatest number.

speciesism The discrimination against a
species; often a critical term used to charac-
terize human behavior relative to nonhuman
animals.

temperance A virtue that emphasizes mod-
eration and control of one’s natural appetites
and keeps them in check.

utilitarianism The ethical theory that evalu-
ates the morality of an act or a rule in terms
of its consequences, and whereby an act is
seen as moral if it produces the greatest net
good for the greatest number.

utility A term used to measure and evaluate
satisfaction and benefits; used to compare
various activities in terms of their success in
maximizing utility.

virtue ethics An approach to moral and
ethical questions that focuses on a person’s
character.

mos81165_06_c06.indd 218 1/6/14 2:33 PM

Running head: PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE 2

Physician-Assisted Suicide

1/7/18

1. Part one: Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be allowed considering the ethical dilemma surrounding the practice?

2. Part two: brief introduction to the topic

Physician-assisted suicide depicts a scenario where doctors are allowed to perform euthanasia, generally termed as the mercy killing, on willing patients who are facing imminent death due to a debilitating and dehumanizing disease or health condition. This topic has gained massive debate over the last two decades with some countries legalizing it. Some of the nations around the globe that have legalized the practice include Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Columbia, and Luxembourg (Georgetown University, 2018). In the United States, physician-assisted suicide has been legalized in several states including Oregon, Colorado, Montana, California, and Washington DC (Georgetown University, 2018). The critics that support its legalization argue that it helps the patient avoid unnecessary suffering during their last days of life, allows them to die with dignity, and ensures the protection of the autonomy regarding how their life ends. The other set of critics, on the other hand, argue that life is sacred and no man should be allowed to terminate it. They further claim that its legalization would lead to misuse of the practice such that patients and doctors may use it for other purposes other than mitigating the unnecessary pain.

3. Part three: position statement

Physician-Assisted suicide should be allowed.

4. Part four: Supporting reason

As indicated earlier, physician-assisted suicide helps alleviate unnecessary suffering and pain in patients facing imminent death in the near future. Some conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, neural degenerative disorders, and multiple organs failure often incapacitate an individual to the extent that they become bedridden as they await their death. Physicians accurately approximate the expected time of the death of such patients. They could be expected to live for a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. In all that time, the patient faces severe physical pain. Secondly, they are confined to their beds where they consistently battle the emotional and psychological reality of their definite death. This leads to depression, injured dignity, low self-esteem, and great psychological pain. Besides, most of these patients cannot do anything for themselves and have to rely on nurses and other hospital or facility resources. Therefore, allowing them to voluntarily or spontaneously opt for euthanasia not only helps them escape unnecessary pain and ensure the protection of their dignity, but it also allows for preservation of hospital resources that could be used on patients with better prognosis – those that would survive with treatment.

5. Part five: Opposing reason

The main arguments concerning euthanasia that the opposing critics use include the sacred nature of life, availability of medication to treat physical pain, and possible misuse of the practice. They claim that life is sacred and that no one should be allowed to terminate any human life irrespective of the circumstances. They also argue that the physical pain can be managed using the highly regulated opioid painkillers. These painkillers are used sparingly to avoid dependency and addiction. The opposing critics observe that since the client is dying anyway, he or she should be allowed maximum doses of the opioid analgesics since dependence and addiction are inconsequential at their stage of life. These critics further argue that some patients could be coerced by family members or doctors to opt for the mercy killing, which would be a misuse of the practice.

Reference
Georgetown University. (2018, January 4). Euthanasia Regulations Around the World. Retrieved from Georgetown University Web site: https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu/euthanasia-map/text.html

Running head: APPLYING DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY TO CRITIQUE PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

APPLYING DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY TO CRITIQUE PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE 2

Applying Deontological Theory to Critique Physician-Assisted Suicide

1/21/18

Applying Deontological Theory to Critique Physician-Assisted Suicide

Introduction

Dilemma and controversy often mar many policies and practices in the daily lives of human beings. Of the most contentious issue in today’s society is the legitimization of physician-assisted suicide. One group of critics and thinkers argue that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized to ensure liberations from suffering, autonomy one’s choice in how they die, and death with dignity as opposed to lying bedridden for weeks or months while relying on other people for even basic personal activities such as bathing, eating, and voiding. Another set of critics argue that legitimizing the practice undermines the sacred nature of life itself, opens up avenues for misuse of the practice, and demands physicians to learn the art of killing, which is contrary to the “do not harm” oath that physicians take. These two stern positions lead to the question of whether physician-assisted suicide should be legitimized. This module uses the deontological theory of ethics to determine the most appropriate position. It resolves that physician-assisted suicide should not be legitimized because of the innate lack of good will in the act itself.

Deontological theory

According to Farrell (2010), deontological ethics theory is founded on the relationship between a sense of duty of the doer and the morality of the human action. This means that an action is not perceived or judged as being morally good by the effect it produces but rather on the characteristics of the action itself. For instance, stealing is bad because it is morally wrong to take another person’s item or property irrespective of whether the person stole food to feed starving children or not. From this example, it emerges that the morality of the action is always universal. Emmanuel Kant makes this stance clear. He argues that one should only use reason to judge the action in determining whether it is morally right or wrong but should never use the outcome of the action to judge the morality of the same action (Kant, 2010). This is in great contrast with the utilitarianism theory which would assert that stealing the food from the wealthy is morally good so long as the stolen food is used to feed starving children. In this sense, the morality, goodness, or badness of the action changes depending on circumstances. The deontological theory argues that such fluidity in judging the morality of an action is not proper. Instead, human beings must apply reason driven by a sense of duty to establish universal laws that should be upheld at any cost, regardless of whether the outcome of implementing that law is positive or negative. In explaining this principle, Kant posits that an action cannot be good until it is qualified as so by goodwill, which is the will to act in accordance with the moral law and respect for the law instead of acting out of natural inclination (Kant, 2010).

Application of the theory in physician-assisted theory

The critics that support the legitimization of physician-assisted suicide propose two main reasons why the practice should be allowed. First, they claim that patients facing imminent death from known conditions such as cancer or HIV/AIDs suffer greatly as they wait for their death in bed. As such, these should be allowed to choose whether to fasten their death and avoid physical, psychological, and emotional suffering or pain (Orfali, 2011). They also argue that legitimizing the practice ensures that the person dies with dignity as they avoid the embarrassment associated with assisted voiding, bathing, and eating (Orfali, 2011). From a deontological ethics point of view, these two reasons are founded on natural inclination and circumstances. They fail to consider the goodwill of the action itself. The action in question is the act of killing another person or terminating another person’s life. Using the lens deontological ethics humanity should stop viewing the outcomes of the act (killing) and instead look at the morality of the law itself. Using this approach, it emerges that killing another person is intrinsically wrong because life is sacred. Therefore, if life is recognized as sacred even in the constitution and killing outlawed in the same legal document, why should certain people start using special circumstances to justify killing? The principle of deontological ethics asserts that the morality of the action ought to be universal. As such, killing is morally wrong irrespective of circumstances. The theory would further argue that doctors take a universal oath of not doing any harm to the patient. Killing the patient is harming them. Therefore, physicians should stick to the universal law of only doing good to the patients and avoid killing them.

Objection to the deontological stance

Interestingly, the main objection to the stand taken by deontological theory concerning physician-assisted suicide uses the principles of deontological theory. Critics could argue that the argument provided in this module selectively anoints two aspects of the act of killing itself while disregarding one aspect that is equally important. This aspect is autonomy. Autonomy is the freedom to determine how one wants to live their life or die. Using the principle of universal law purported by deontological theory, these critics may argue that autonomy should be universally accepted. As such, denying the patient the freedom of how they should leave this world is morally wrong even by the standards of deontology.

Another important objection that is more obvious directly opposes the failure of the deontological ethics to factor the outcome of one’s action. By refusing to acknowledge that circumstances should determine one’s action, deontological philosophers cause unnecessary suffering to stakeholders of the issue. This stance is argued and supported by utilitarianism philosophers. According to these thinkers, the positive outcome should be the ultimate and universal law in determining the morality of an action.

Conclusion

Physician-assisted suicide is a controversial debate characterized by a group in favor of its legitimization and another team opposing its legalization. Ethical theories can be used to determine the morality of the proposed practice. The deontological theory argues against its legitimization. It resolves that physician-assisted suicide should not be legitimized because of the innate lack of good will in the act itself. First, the theory resolves that reasons provided for the legalization are based on consequences and outcomes. As such, they fail to uphold the principle of universality of the morality of the act of killing. Secondly, deontological theory observes that since life is universally sacred, physician-assisted suicide should not be permitted because the killing act is morally wrong. Similarly, physicians have the universal moral duty of not harming the patient. Killing the patient under provisions of physician-assisted suicide is therefore morally wrong because it harms the patient. The stance of the deontological theory is objected to from two perspectives. First, it fails to consider the universality of human autonomy. Secondly, it is objected from the utilitarianism perspective, which asserts that positive outcome should be the universal rule of duty.

References
Farrell, M. E. (2010). Ethics: A University Guide. New York: Progressive Frontiers Pubs.
Kant, I. (2010). Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. Jonathan Bennett.
Orfali, R. (2011). Death with Dignity: The Case for Legalizing Physician-assisted Dying and Euthanasia. Santa Monica: Hillcrest Publishing Group.

LIST OF ACCEPTABLE PRIMARY RESOURCES FOR THE WEEK

THREE ASSIGNMENT AND WEEK FIVE FINAL PAPER

These are the primary resources that you can cite when explaining a moral theory in order to fulfill the relevant portion of

the resources requirement.

* Indicates readings included in the “Required Readings” portion of the course.

Utilitarianism

*Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved

from www.earlymoderntexts.com

• See the guidance for the required portions of the text.

Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/

Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 526-541.

Deontology

*Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by

Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from www.earlymoderntexts.com

• See the guidance for the required portions of the text.

O’Neill, O. (1993). A simplified account of Kant’s ethics. In T. Regan (Ed.) Matters of Life and Death, 411-415.

Retrieved from http://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/O’Neill, Kant

Virtue Ethics

*Aristotle. (1931). Nicomachean ethics. (W.D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford, GBR: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8438/pg8438.html

• See the guidance for the required portions of the text.

Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

• Chapters 14-15 are included in Chapter 6 of the text.

http://insite.bridgepoint.local/dept/ops/pni/Navigator%20Images/Ashford%20Logo%20New

Feminist/Care Ethics

*Held, V. “Feminist transformations of moral theory.”

• Included in Chapter 6 of the text. See the guidance for the required portions of the text.

*Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Retrieved from

https://lms.manhattan.edu/pluginfile.php/26517/mod_resource/content/1/Gilligan In a Different Voice .

*Noddings, N. (2010). Maternal factor: Two paths to morality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (213-220)

(Ebook)

http://insite.bridgepoint.local/dept/ops/pni/Navigator%20Images/Ashford%20Logo%20New

LIST OF ACCEPTABLE PRIMARY RESOURCES FOR THE WEEK THREE ASSIGNMENT AND WEEK FIVE FINAL PAPER

Utilitarianism
Deontology
Virtue Ethics
Feminist/Care Ethics

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ For A-PLus Writer only ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now