What is “Ethics”? What is its relationship to “Value”?

 

 

Early Material

1. What is “Ethics”? What is its relationship to “Value”?
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions about what is morally right and wrong, as well as the nature of good and evil. It involves systematic approaches to understanding moral principles and values that guide human behavior. Values, on the other hand, refer to the beliefs and principles that individuals or societies hold as important or desirable. The relationship between ethics and values is intrinsic; ethics often seeks to understand, evaluate, and critique the values that inform moral judgments and actions. In essence, while ethics provides the framework for assessing moral behavior, values represent the individual or societal standards that inform those assessments.

2. The normative/descriptive distinction
The normative/descriptive distinction refers to the difference between statements that describe how things are (descriptive) and statements that prescribe how things ought to be (normative). Descriptive statements are factual and can be observed and tested, such as “People generally prefer comfort over discomfort.” Normative statements, however, involve judgments or prescriptions regarding what is desirable or acceptable, such as “People should prioritize their health.” Understanding this distinction is crucial in ethical discussions, as it helps clarify whether we are discussing mere observations or making moral claims.

3. What is epistemology? What is metaphysics? What is skepticism?
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, scope, and limitations of knowledge. It explores questions about belief, justification, and truth. Metaphysics, on the other hand, examines the fundamental nature of reality, including concepts such as existence, objects, and their properties. Skepticism is a philosophical attitude of doubting the veracity of certain knowledge claims. In epistemology, skepticism questions whether we can truly know anything with certainty, while in metaphysics, it may challenge assumptions about the existence or nature of various entities.

4. What was Descartes’ basic puzzle?
Descartes’ basic puzzle revolved around the quest for certainty in knowledge. He famously sought to establish a foundation for knowledge that could not be doubted. His method of radical doubt led him to question everything he had previously believed, including the existence of the external world and even his own body. Ultimately, Descartes concluded that while he could doubt everything else, he could not doubt his own existence as a thinking being: “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). This realization became the cornerstone of his philosophy.

5. What is Theological Voluntarism? How did it contribute to the “moral crisis of the Modern Era”?
Theological Voluntarism is the view that moral values are determined by God’s will. According to this perspective, what is right or wrong depends solely on divine command rather than any inherent moral order. This contributed to the moral crisis of the Modern Era by undermining the idea of objective morality independent of religious authority. As Enlightenment thinkers began to emphasize reason and autonomy over divine command, many grappled with the implications of a morality stripped of its religious underpinnings. This tension led to existential questions about the basis of ethics in a secular world.

6. Who was Montaigne? What position did he endorse?
Michel de Montaigne was a French philosopher and essayist of the Renaissance period known for developing the essay as a literary form. He endorsed skepticism and relativism, particularly regarding cultural practices and beliefs. Montaigne argued that different cultures have different customs and ways of life that are equally valid, which laid the groundwork for modern cultural relativism. His work encouraged readers to question absolute truths and embrace a more open-minded approach to understanding others’ perspectives.

7. Who was Hobbes? What did he mean by the state of nature? What were the basic “conditions” for humans in the state of nature? How did Hobbes use the state of nature to offer a solution to the moral crisis?
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher best known for his work on social contract theory. By “state of nature,” Hobbes referred to a hypothetical condition in which humans existed without any political authority or social contract. He characterized this state as one of chaos and conflict, where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In this condition, individuals acted solely out of self-interest, leading to violent competition for resources. Hobbes argued that to escape this moral crisis and ensure safety and security, individuals must enter into a social contract, agreeing to surrender some freedoms to a sovereign authority capable of maintaining order.

8. What do philosophers mean by prudential reason?
Prudential reason refers to reasoning based on practical considerations aimed at achieving self-interest or well-being over time. It involves weighing options and making decisions that will lead to favorable outcomes for oneself in the long term. In ethical discussions, prudential reasoning often contrasts with moral reasoning; while moral reasoning focuses on what one ought to do from an ethical standpoint, prudential reasoning emphasizes choices made for personal benefit or survival.

9. What is the Utilitarian principle? And what is the basic argument for it?
The Utilitarian principle posits that actions are morally right if they promote overall happiness or well-being and wrong if they produce suffering or harm. It suggests that the best action is one that maximizes utility—the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The basic argument for utilitarianism rests on its consequentialist nature; it evaluates actions based solely on their outcomes rather than intentions or inherent qualities.

10. What were the two parts of Mill’s theory qualitative hedonism?
John Stuart Mill’s qualitative hedonism consists of two parts: (1) the distinction between higher and lower pleasures and (2) the importance of intellectual and emotional pleasures over mere physical pleasures. Mill argued that not all pleasures are equal; intellectual pursuits like art, literature, and moral contemplation provide greater satisfaction than base physical pleasures. He believed that those who have experienced both types of pleasure would prefer higher pleasures due to their depth and lasting impact on human fulfillment.

11. What is the difference between the three consequentialist theories: Utilitarianism, Altruism, Egoism?
Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness for all individuals affected by an action; it considers collective well-being as paramount. Altruism emphasizes selflessness and prioritizing others’ welfare above one’s own interests; it advocates actions that benefit others without expecting anything in return. Egoism centers on self-interest as the primary motivator for actions; it maintains that individuals should act in ways that maximize their own happiness or welfare without necessarily considering others’ interests.

12. What are some objections to Utilitarianism?
Some objections to utilitarianism include: (1) it can justify immoral actions if they lead to greater overall happiness (e.g., sacrificing an individual for the greater good); (2) it may overlook justice by prioritizing aggregate happiness over individual rights; (3) it can lead to demanding moral obligations since individuals must always act in ways that maximize utility; (4) it struggles with measuring happiness or comparing different types of pleasure; and (5) critics argue it can ignore personal relationships or commitments in favor of impartial calculations.

13. What is Kant’s Categorical Imperative & what is a “maxim”?
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a foundational principle in his moral philosophy that asserts that one should act only according to that maxim which one can will to become a universal law. A “maxim” is a subjective principle or rule that an individual uses when acting; it represents one’s intention behind an action. Kant believed that moral actions must be based on maxims that could be universally applied without contradiction.

14. Why does Kant investigate the idea of “duty”?
Kant investigates duty because he believes morality should be grounded in rationality rather than contingent outcomes or emotions. For Kant, duty represents an obligation derived from reason; moral actions are those performed out of duty rather than inclination or desire. By focusing on duty, Kant emphasizes that individuals have a moral responsibility to act according to universal principles that respect human dignity and autonomy.

15. What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative? Which does Kant thinks is essential to morality and why?
A hypothetical imperative is a conditional statement that prescribes an action based on a desired outcome (e.g., “If you want to be healthy, you should exercise”). In contrast, a categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies universally regardless of individual desires (e.g., “You should treat others as you wish to be treated”). Kant believes that categorical imperatives are essential to morality because they provide a basis for universally binding ethical principles that stem from rationality rather than subjective preferences.

16. What is the “CI” Procedure? Can you construct an example to explain it?
The “CI” Procedure refers to Kant’s method for determining whether an action is morally permissible by evaluating its maxim through two formulations: (1) Can this maxim be universalized without contradiction? (2) Does this action respect humanity as an end in itself? For example, consider the maxim “I will lie to get out of trouble.” When universalized—everyone lies whenever convenient—it leads to a contradiction because trust would erode, making lying ineffective. Thus, this maxim fails the CI procedure and is deemed morally wrong.

17. What is the main difference between the theories of Kant and Mill?
The main difference between Kant’s deontological ethics and Mill’s utilitarianism lies in their focus: Kant emphasizes duty and adherence to moral rules based on rationality (categorical imperatives), while Mill focuses on consequences and overall happiness (utilitarian principle). Kantian ethics regards actions as inherently right or wrong based on adherence to duty irrespective of outcomes, whereas utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their capacity to maximize overall utility or happiness.

18. What are some objections to Kant’s argument?
Objections to Kant’s argument include: (1) his strict adherence to duty can lead to morally counterintuitive conclusions; for example, telling a lie might be justified in cases where it protects someone from harm; (2) critics argue his framework does not adequately address conflicts between duties; (3) some suggest that Kant’s emphasis on rationality overlooks emotional aspects of human experience; (4) others question whether all rational beings can agree on universal maxims due to differing cultural backgrounds and experiences; and (5) critics assert that Kant’s approach may be too abstract and disconnected from real-world complexities in ethical decision-making.