Ethics and Ethical Reasoning - Mr. Farshtey



Ethics and Ethical Reasoning

What is Ethics?

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, a rational examination into people’s moral beliefs and behavior.

In general, philosophy is a discipline that asks – and attempts to answer – basic questions about key areas or subject matters of human life and about pervasive and significant aspects of experience. To do so, philosophers clarify concepts and examine propositions and beliefs, but their major task is to analyze and construct arguments.

Ethics, or moral philosophy, is that branch of philosophy which has morality as its subject matter. Morality is concerned with questions such as “What is the right thing to do?” or “How should we live our lives?” Ethicists, or moral philosophers, usually focus on examining people’s moral judgments and decisions, especially the reasons or justifications they give for their moral positions.

The question “Why should we concern ourselves with moral problems?” has an obvious answer: We cannot avoid such problems since life is continually placing them in our path. We encounter them in growing up, in our working life, in raising children, in caring for aged parents, in our relationships with colleagues, loved ones and adversaries, in the opportunities and temptations we are presented with.

A word must be said first about the specific terms “morality” and “ethics.” Often these terms are used interchangeably. Both terms derive their meaning from the idea of “custom” – that is, normal behavior. Specifically, “morality” comes from the Latin word mores and “ethics” from the Greek ethos.

Right and Wrong

What makes an action right or wrong? What do we mean when we say that someone ought or ought not to do something? If we cannot explain why such things as torture, murder, cruelty, slavery, rape, and theft are wrong, what justification can we have for trying to prevent them? Is morality simply a matter of prejudice or can we give good reasons for our moral beliefs?

When deciding how to act, we are often faced with uncertainties, confusions, and conflicts. We may not always know how to act, and we are often faced with substantial disagreement about some highly contentious ethical issues. For example, there is clearly a lack of moral consensus with respect to our views on euthanasia, abortion, or our treatment towards non-human animals.

Some people may therefore come to the conclusion that moral judgments are just “matters of opinion.” They believe that because ethical judgments are essentially subjective, each person’s assessment of the right thing to do is as good as anyone else’s. And if all opinions are equally good (or equally bad), no one can give authoritative advice as to what is right and what is wrong.

The implication of this line of thinking is that morality is seen as simply a matter of personal preference: Ethical judgments are “personal” in the same way that taste is personal. Just as there is no point in arguing about whether pizza is more delicious than chocolate, there is also no objective answer as to whether it is right or wrong to cheat on your spouse. Each person can have his or her own morality, and there is no point criticizing or rationally evaluating anyone’s moral judgments.

However, if you stop to think about it, you will quickly realize that very little ethics, or morality, is left to one’s opinion. Generally accepted rules about rightness and wrongness of actions are in fact articulated in clear social principles, which are in turn encoded in the laws of our society. We all agree that rape and armed robbery are obviously immoral, and we can safely suppose that all rational people should understand why there are laws forbidding such behavior and there are good justifications in locking up people who disobey them.

Rules of conduct are necessary if people are to live together. Every society has rules of conduct describing what people ought and ought not to do in various situations. Law and morality can be seen as rules that are generally accepted and followed by members of a society for good reasons. Many laws are instituted to promote welfare (i.e. well-being), resolve conflicts of interest, and promote social harmony, and it is no coincidence that morality often serves almost exactly the same purposes.

Ethics, however, may judge that some laws are immoral without denying that they have legal authority. There might be laws that allow, or in some cases require, citizens to act in ways that are morally impermissible; for example, laws that enforce racial discrimination or racial segregation. Moreover, some aspects of morality are not covered by law. There are things that many people consider morally wrong and yet there are no laws against them, except in rather special instances. Examples include lying, breaking promises, failing to show gratitude, or being rude to one’s family members, all of which are (normally) wrong but not illegal.

There are actions, such as jaywalking, which we may consider to be justifiably illegal and yet not immoral, and there are actions, such as adultery (i.e. cheating on one’s spouse), which we may consider to be immoral and yet not justifiably illegal. These examples show that morality is something different from the law. The fact that a law tells us that we are allowed to do something does not settle the question of whether morality gives it the stamp of approval.

Our ethical judgments cannot be just a matter of personal preference. We know, for instance, that moral judgments are flawed if they are based on misinformation, short-sightedness, bias, or lack of understanding. Our ethical views can be changed by argument and reason. It seems to make perfectly good sense to try to convince others that they might be mistaken in their moral judgments, and we ourselves may likewise adjust our moral beliefs and judgments in response to the views and arguments of others.

Ethics is unlike taste in that it is open to reason. Open-mindedness means that while you have an opinion and good reasons to believe it, you will still listen to the reasoning behind opposing views; and if they show that your reasons turn out not to be good ones, then you are willing to change your mind. Open-mindedness starts with admitting that while you are a thoughtful, caring person, you might have it wrong and want to think hard about the different sides of an issue.

When we are confronted with moral problems, we should strive to make informed decisions based on the best evidence, and then act accordingly, even though the best evidence will never guarantee complete certainty. To make informed decisions, we should try to understand the relevant issues, take a longer-term perspective, set aside irrational biases, and inculcate a willingness to subject our tentative conclusions to the criticisms of others.

All in all, we should approach ethical disagreements in a way that is more likely to generate thoughtful discussion and open-minded consideration of alternative views. We need to make sure that there is room for thoughtful, caring people to disagree, but this does not imply that moral judgment is simply a matter of subjective opinion. The key, as we shall see, is to understand the reasoning that people employ in ethical decision-making.

Ethical Reasoning

When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that our own opinion must be correct, so there is no need to consider the argument on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational: They may be nothing but the products of ignorance, prejudice or misunderstanding.

If we are to make progress towards establishing consensus about various ethical issues, not only do we need to ask ourselves why we think certain actions are right and other actions are wrong, we also need to construct arguments and explain our reasoning to others. It is especially important to understand and appreciate alternative viewpoints and give due consideration to perspectives that are different from our own. When there is a clash of opinions over an issue, we should weigh the facts and the reasoning process behind the different views to determine the stronger line of thinking.

Ethics is, first and foremost, a form of rational inquiry. In making moral decisions, we are concerned not only with what actions are morally right and wrong, but what makes these actions morally right or wrong. As philosopher James Rachels reminds us, “The morally right thing to do, in any circumstance, is determined by what there are the best reasons for doing.”

It is important to know how to reason well in thinking about ethical matters. To make informed judgments and decisions, we have to master the skills of critical thinking, moral reasoning, and constructing sound arguments. In dealing with moral issues, good reasoning skill is necessary because we are expected to be able to evaluate the arguments of others and put forward arguments of our own.

An argument is a connected series of statements in which premises (i.e. reasons or evidence) are offered in support a particular conclusion. Premises are reasons or evidence offered to support an assertion, and the conclusion is the assertion that the premises attempt to support. The premises and conclusion together make up an argument. Reasoning is the act of drawing (or deriving) a conclusion from a premise or a set of premises.

“It is likely that David took the money, since the money disappeared at the same time as David left, and he had stolen others’ money before.”

In the example above, “the money disappeared at the same time as David left” and “he had stolen others’ money before” are premises; “David took the money” is the conclusion.

A sound argument is a good argument. It has a valid form in which the conclusion follows logically from the premises, and the premises given for the conclusion are true. In contrast, a bad or unsound argument relies on false premises, or invalid reasoning, or both. Generally speaking, arguments are either valid (i.e. logical) or invalid (i.e. illogical), but a further distinction can be drawn between “deductive arguments” and “inductive arguments.”

In a valid deductive argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. That is to say, if we accept all the premises, we must also accept the conclusion because the conclusion follows logically (or necessarily) from the premises.

P1 All mammals are mortal.

P2 All humans are mammals.

C Therefore, all humans are mortal.

The above is an example of a valid deductive argument: The conclusion follows logically from the premises. It is also a sound argument (whose premises and conclusion are true).

Next, let us consider another example:

P1 All dogs are mammals.

P2 All horses are mammals.

C Therefore, all horses are dogs.

The above is an invalid deductive argument, because its conclusion does not follow from the premises. Although the premises are true, the conclusion is false. Because of an error in reasoning, a false conclusion has been drawn, and so the argument as a whole is invalid or illogical.

If deductive reasoning can be defined as the process of reasoning from one or more premises to reach a logically certain conclusion, inductive reasoning can be regarded as an act of deriving a general conclusion from particular facts or observations. An inductive argument is one whose premises make the conclusion seem probable yet still not necessarily true. Consider the following:

“My little brother has many of the symptoms of pneumonia, such as fever, cough, headaches and shortness of breath. So it is likely that he has the disease.”

The above can be rewritten into a series of premises that build to a conclusion:

P1 My brother has a fever.

P2 My brother is coughing.

P3 My brother has a headache.

P4 My brother has shortness of breath.

C My brother has pneumonia.

In this example, it is quite clear that even if all the premises are true, we still cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion. We cannot draw a definite conclusion from the observation that many of the symptoms of pneumonia are present. Even though it is highly probable that my little brother has come down with pneumonia, the evidence is insufficient to buttress the claim that he really has the disease.

When we evaluate our own or other people’s arguments, we should consider questions such as: (1) Is the evidence relevant? (2) Are the facts correct? (3) Is the reasoning logical? (4) Are there any counterarguments? Generally speaking, good arguments are relevant, valid, and well supported by evidence (i.e. facts, observations, statistics and examples). Much of the skill of moral reasoning consists in discerning the difference between good and bad arguments.

One of the purposes of studying ethics is to learn how to think critically and develop skills of reasoning and argumentation. When dealing with ethical issues, not only should we familiarize ourselves with different viewpoints, we should also be able to explain why we agree or disagree with those viewpoints.

If we want to have an informed opinion about an issue, we have to examine it from all possible angles. We must be open to the viewpoints of others, and be willing to exchange ideas with them. It is especially important that before drawing any conclusion of our own, we have to consider carefully the arguments that other people make to support their views. Critical thinking can be seen as the skills of correctly evaluating arguments made by others and constructing reasoned arguments to support our own standpoint.

To think critically and reason well about ethical issues, we have to (1) understand the background or situation; (2) think open-mindedly and raise relevant questions; (3) gather and evaluate information; (4) examine different viewpoints and their supporting arguments; (5) develop a standpoint of our own; and (6) construct reasoned arguments to support our own view.

Fallacies

Our ethical judgments should be reasonable, logical and consistent. In constructing argument, we should make every effort to avoid errors and inconsistencies.

Fallacies are errors or defects that occur in arguments. Fallacious arguments may seem persuasive on the surface, but they cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason because they are logically unsound. Arguments can go wrong in an indefinite number of ways, and all we can do is to always stay alert to the possibility of errors. Because there are hundreds of different types of fallacies, we will focus on just four of those:

(1) An argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy. It is the mistake of overlooking the dissimilarities between things. Very often, two things may have superficial similarities, but they are not exactly the same. Consider the following:

“Bob must be a lazy person because his brother Jack is very lazy.”

The above example is likely to be a case of “false analogy” because having the same biological parents may have little or nothing to do with the character trait of “laziness.”

(2) Another common fallacy or error in reasoning is called begging the question or arguing in a circle. For example, if you want to argue that abortion should be permitted, you need to explain why this is so. It is not enough to say that abortion should be permitted because women should be allowed to make choices. You are begging the question because you are merely reiterating that abortion should be permitted. Further argument or information would be necessary to explain why women should be allowed to choose abortion.

(3) The straw man fallacy is an error in reasoning that we commit when we attribute a poorly reasoned argument to someone who never actually made that argument. Here is an example:

“The Buddha thinks that desire is the root cause of suffering. The best way to extinguish one’s desire is to commit suicide. Therefore, the Buddha encourages people to commit suicide.”

When someone criticizes Buddhism for encouraging people to commit suicide, they are attacking a straw man because the Buddha never says anything to that effect. The Buddha does not think that committing suicide is the best or only way to extinguish desire.

(4) Slippery slope arguments are very common in applied ethics. They usually involve a prediction that some serious avoidable harm will follow if some new policy is introduced or some legal, social or political reform is carried out. And once the Pandora’s box is open, there is no way of preventing the dreadful consequences. Consider the following:

“If we legalize soccer betting, more people will be addicted to gambling. As the number of pathological gamblers increases, there will be more crime and other social problems. We must think twice before allowing this to happen.”

Whether the above argument is sound or not depends to a very large extent on the availability of evidence. If there is insufficient evidence supporting the slippery slope effect, then the argument can be seen as unsound or fallacious.

Principles and Theories

Moral principles are general rules or standards for evaluating conduct. Some moral principles, such as the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”) and the principle of formal equality (“Equals ought to be treated equally.”) are often regarded as self-evident in the sense that no proof or justification is necessary for people to accept them – there is no reason whatsoever not to accept them.

Many ethical arguments consist of principles being applied to the facts of particular cases, and so the obvious questions to be asked, in each case, are (1) whether the principle is sound, and (2) whether it is relevant in a particular situation. Take, for example, the principle of formal equality, which demands that people who are alike in all relevant aspects should get similar treatment. When this fails to happen – when racist or sexist policies are enacted, for instance – then something has gone wrong:

P1 All humans should be treated equally.

P2 African Americans are humans.

C Therefore, discrimination against African Americans is wrong.

Since the principle of formal equality is generally regarded as self-evident, it can be invoked to call into question any action, practice or institution that treats the members of disadvantaged groups as somehow morally inferior – as blacks (i.e. African Americans) and other ethnic minorities have at various times been treated.

A theory can be seen as a framework of principles and related concepts that can be employed to make sense of people, things, actions, events, and situations. In our daily lives, we are often confronted with a wide range of moral problems and yet we may not have the sort of framework which would enable us to deal with these problems. And that is why ethical theories are so important: (1) they provide reasons or justifications for our own actions and decisions; and (2) we can rely on them to evaluate the actions and decisions of others.

Morality governs the way people should behave towards each other by telling them what they ought and ought not to do in various situations. Two broad approaches to moral reasoning have shaped most people’s understanding of morality: Consequentialism holds that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequences, while deontology holds that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules irrespective of consequences.

One ethical theory we will examine in length is utilitarianism. It provides us with an example of a consequentialist moral theory in which we judge whether an action is better than its alternatives by considering its actual or expected effectiveness in promoting general happiness. Another theory we will consider is Kantian ethics, which provides us with an example of a deontological theory, according to which right actions are ones that conform to requirements of rationality and human dignity.

Two or more principles (or theories) may sometimes come into conflict in particular situations. When this happens, we may find ourselves trapped in a dilemma; that is, a situation in which we have to make a difficult choice between two or more alternatives. Imagine that a friend has lent you money, and you are about to pay him back, but you know that your friend will spend the money on drugs which will damage his health. What does utilitarianism imply that you should do? What does Kant’s moral theory imply that you should do? Do you think either of them can give you the right answer?

However useful they may be, principles and theories should only be seen as tools in moral reasoning. They should not be taken as ready-made solutions to ethical issues. Moral decision-making should not be seen as a matter of applying easy-to-follow rules to complex, real-life problems. Instead, we should try to understand how moral conflicts arise in particular situations by considering the different values and interests involved. We should examine the merits and shortcomings of people’s responses or positions, keeping in mind the possibility that there might not be a straightforward solution in the case or situation at hand.

In ethics, we do not have scientific formulas or technical solutions that can be applied mechanically to particular cases. Instead, we have to pay attention to the historical, social, and psychological factors affecting people’s moral judgments, and most important of all, make the best use of our critical thinking and moral reasoning skills to assess the strengths and weaknesses of different moral arguments and positions.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download