Ethics across the Curriculum
Resources and Classroom Activities

Theories in Ethics: A Synopsis
(Adapted from the Ethics across the Curriculum Seminar
at The Rutland Center for Ethics at Clemson University, June 2005)

What if anything goes?
What would life be like if there were no rules, no distinction between right and wrong?
What if it were true that anything goes—that no action is wrong?

Thomas Hobbes said of such a state: Life in this state would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

What is an ethics issue?
A situation has an ethical dimension when action within it would have a significant impact on the well being of oneself and/or others.

What does it mean to have an ethical discussion?
Focus on the systematic justification for ethical claims.

Opinion is not enough; a good justification for that opinion is necessary.
Explain why your opinion is right; not just how you feel.

People will try to avoid answering questions about their position: “Well, I just think it’s wrong.”   Don’t let them get away with that!

What flaws in reasoning might one encounter in an ethics discussion?

1. Bandwagon: This view must be correct because it’s so popular.
   Response: Popularity is not good evidence of rightness.
    
2. Appeal to Emotion: This view must be correct because I feel so strongly about it.
   Response: It’s usually a bad idea to make an important decision in the grip of strong emotions.
    
3. Strawman: I can distort your position and then easily attack it.
   Response: If this position seems silly to reasonable people, then perhaps something important in that position has been missed.
    
4. Appeal to Ignorance:  This view must be correct because you can’t prove that it’s wrong. (“My dog has emotions just like you.”)
   Response: Possibility may be a condition for belief, but evidence is still required for a good argument.
    
5. Appeal to Authority: This view must be correct because it’s supported by some authority.
   Response: Authorities may help us to arrive at sound reasoning in their area of expertise, but a view is correct or incorrect independent of what the authorities say. Authorities themselves must supply evidence.

What about relativism?
What position may a relativist take? Examples of relativist thinking:

• What makes something right or wrong is what society says is right or wrong.
• Moral rules differ from culture to culture.
• All answers to ethical questions are equally correct.
• In the end, it all boils down to what I feel is right.
• What you think is right is right for you.
• Who can say what’s right or wrong?

These comments represent a dangerous situation and call for immediate intervention!

Response:

• The mere fact that people have different beliefs about X says nothing about what is actually the case about X. Reasonable people still can and should debate X.
• Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. I can respect someone’s right to have an opinion and still  reasonably judge that the opinion is wrong. Reasonable people can still debate the issue and search for a sound judgment.
• Furthermore, not all views deserve toleration. Some views, if manifested in action, are obviously dangerous.
• Reasonable people believe that ethical discussions are valuable. It follows, then, that not all views are equal. Otherwise, these discussions would be pointless.
• If relativism is correct, then, in the end, might will make right.
• Think about the consequences of concluding that right depends on where and when one lives. What hope, then, is there for our growth in moral judgment?
• We can understand that a judgment is morally indefensible and still respect the persons who (wrongly) hold that judgment. That doesn’t mean that we applaud or accept their judgment.

Classical Theories in Ethics:

1. Utilitarianism or Consequentialism
Right action creates the greatest good for the greatest number.
An action is ethical if it augments the happiness of the parties whose interests are at stake.
In deciding what ought to be done ethically, one should:

• Identify the foreseeable consequences of alternative courses of action.
• Evaluate these consequences in light of their value—how much good they produce and at what cost.
• Choose the action that produces the greatest benefit at the lowest cost—over the long haul—for all those who have a stake in the matter.

2. Deontology or Duty Ethics
Right action depends on a universalizable policy; it involves and promotes respect for persons and their rights.

It’s not the consequences of one’s actions that matter. What matters is the intent of the agent. The essence of ethical duty is to do the right thing because it is the right thing.

Act on those rules that you could will to be a universal law. An act is right if the policy that it sets is good not only for me but for everyone.

Treat others only as ends in themselves, never as means to an end. Persons must be treated as persons, not as things.

3. Virtue Ethics or the Ethics of Aspiration
Right action promotes good character and integrity.
The central question is: what should I aspire to be?
It is my responsibility to make of myself a person who can inspire others to right action.
In every action and decision, I am constructing the person that I will be.

“Ethical behavior is one of the traits of the mature, strong, healthy, fully developed human personality.”  Thomas White

How might a combination of these three theories be applied?
An action could be examined to determine

• If it leads to good consequences
• If it involves and promotes respect for persons and their rights
• If it promotes the development of good character and integrity

If such convergence is present, this condition should beget particular confidence in the action to be undertaken.

Ethical Decision Making: Four Steps

1. Identify the issues and the stakeholders
2. Analyze:
   The issues: What is at stake and for whom?
   The options as suggested by
               Consequentialism
               Duty ethics
               Virtue ethics
3. Attempt to achieve convergence: How many theories can be applied?
4. Act confidently and courageously according to one’s judgment.

Ethics Contents | Next