MODULE 1

MIDTERM

Week No.: 11

Module No.: 9

Main Topic: Frameworks and Principles Behind Moral Disposition

 Kant and Rights Theories

Sub Topics:
 Utilitarianism

CMO 20, (2013)

References:
NGEC-ADZU ETHICS COURSE MATERIAL (2017)

https://bit.ly/37lktbq

Frameworks and Principles Behind Moral Disposition

Meta-Ethics Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that studies the nature of morality. As such,
it talks about the meaning, reference, and truth values of moral judgments. It also explains
what goodness and wickedness mean and how we know about them. Studying the methods
for choosing ethical principles and doing normative ethics can be said to be part of this
more basic branch of moral philosophy. Because it studies the meaning of ethical language
and the metaphysics of moral truths, meta-ethics deals with questions like the following:
Are there objective moral truths? What do the words 'good,' 'bad,' 'right' and 'wrong' mean?
Are moral judgments a matter of subjective personal feeling? If we say "Slavery is wrong,"
are we just claiming our customs or are we making an objective declaration that is true
regardless of what anybody may think? How can we know if something is right or wrong?
How may ethical propositions be supported or defended? Meta-ethical theories are
commonly classified semantically as either cognitivist or non-cognitivist; substantially as
either universalist or relativist; and epistemologically as empiricist, rationalist, or
intuitionist.

1. Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

a. Cognitivism states that moral judgments convey propositions, that is, they are 'truth
bearers,' or they are either true or false. Most ethical theories are cognitivist as they contend
that right and wrong are matters of fact. The most famous forms of cognitive ethics are the
moral realism and the ethical subjectivism.

 Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral
judgments are independent of people's thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that
morality is about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person or group's
subjective judgment.

 Ethical subjectivism, on the other hand, holds that the truth (or falsity) of ethical
propositions are dependent on the attitudes or standards of a person or group of
persons. Subjectivism is obviously contrary to moral realism.

b. Non-cognitivism denies that moral judgments are either true or false. It claims that
ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions, hence are neither true nor false.

 Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivist theory. It submits that moral
judgments are mere expressions of our emotions and feelings. Like exclamatory
sentences, ethical sentences cannot be said to be either true or false according to the
theory.

2. Universalism vs. Relativism

The Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism debate has existed in legal scholarship for decades,
and is increasingly entering public discourse on international law and human rights.
Universalism refers to the notion that human rights are universal and should apply to every
human being. Cultural Relativists object, and argue that human rights are culturally
dependent, and that no moral principles can be made to apply to all cultures. They argue that
the principles embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) are the product
of Western political history. Indeed, the origins of the Universal Declaration are rooted in
political landmarks in Western history, such as the Magna Carta of the United Kingdom
(1215), the French Revolution (1789) and the American Bill of Rights (1791). Cultural
Relativists argue that Universalism, in its attempt to extend a Western ideal to the rest of the
world, is a form of cultural imperialism. As the establishments of post-conflict ad-hoc
tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990's and the International Criminal
Court in 2002 illustrate, universalism is steadily being put into force. Cultural Relativists are
critical of the validity, relevance and effect of these tribunals and of the ICC especially.
Instead, Cultural Relativists are generally supportive of 'traditional' or local approaches to
justice, as they believe these will contribute more to post-conflict reconciliation.

3. Empiricism

Empiricism is the philosophy of knowledge by observation. It holds that the best way to
gain knowledge is to see, hear, touch, or otherwise sense things directly. In stronger
versions, it holds that this is the only kind of knowledge that really counts. Empiricism has
been extremely important to the history of science, as various thinkers over the centuries
have proposed that all knowledge should be tested empirically rather than just through
thought-experiments or rational calculation.

Empiricism is an idea about how we know things, which means it belongs to the field
of epistemology.

4. Rationalism

Rationalism, in Western philosophy, the view that regards reason as the chief source and test
of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist
asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. There are, according to
the rationalists, certain rational principles—especially in logic and mathematics, and even
in ethics and metaphysics—that are so fundamental that to deny them is to fall into
contradiction. The rationalists’ confidence in reason and proof tends, therefore, to detract
from their respect for other ways of knowing. Rationalism has long been the rival
of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge comes from, and must be tested by, sense
experience. As against this doctrine, rationalism holds reason to be a faculty that can lay hold
of truths beyond the reach of sense perception, both in certainty and generality. In stressing
the existence of a “natural light,” rationalism has also been the rival of systems
claiming esoteric knowledge, whether from mystical experience, revelation, or intuition, and
has been opposed to various irrationalisms that tend to stress the biological, the emotional or
volitional, the unconscious, or the existential at the expense of the rational.

The Utilitarian Approach

Utilitarianism can be traced back to the school of the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus of
Samos (341-270 BCE), who argued that the best life is one that produces the least pain and
distress.  The 18th Century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) applied a similar
standard to individual actions, and created a system in which actions could be described as
good or bad depending upon the amount and degree of pleasure and/or pain they would
produce. Bentham’s student, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) modified this system by making its
standard for the good the more subjective concept of “happiness,” as opposed to the more
materialist idea of “pleasure.”

Utilitarianism is one of the most common approaches to making ethical decisions, especially

decisions with consequences that concern large groups of people, in part because it instructs
us to weigh the different amounts of good and bad that will be produced by our action. This
conforms to our feeling that some good and some bad will necessarily be the result of our
action and that the best action will be that which provides the most good or does the least
harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. Ethical
environmental action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm
for all who are affected—government, corporations, the community, and the environment.

The Duty-Based Approach

The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological ethics, is most commonly
associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), although it had important
precursors in earlier non-consquentialist, often explicitly religious, thinking of people like
Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who emphasized the importance of the personal will and
intention (and of the omnipotent God who sees this interior mental state) to ethical decision
making. Kant argued that doing what is right is not about the consequences of our actions
(something over which we ultimately have no control) but about having the proper intention
in performing the action. The ethical action is one taken from duty, that is, it is done precisely
because it is our obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligations are the same for all
rational creatures (they are universal), and knowledge of what these obligations entail is
arrived at by discovering rules of behavior that are not contradicted by reason.

Kant’s famous formula for discovering our ethical duty is known as the “categorical
imperative.” It has a number of different versions, but Kant believed they all amounted to the
same imperative. The most basic form of the imperative is: “Act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” So, for
example, lying is unethical because we could not universalize a maxim that said “One should
always lie.” Such a maxim would render all speech meaningless. We can, however,
universalize the maxim, “Always speak truthfully,” without running into a logical
contradiction. (Notice the duty-based approach says nothing about how easy or difficult it
would be to carry out these maxims, only that it is our duty as rational creatures to do so.) In
acting according to a law that we have discovered to be rational according to our own
universal reason, we are acting autonomously (in a self-regulating fashion), and thus are
bound by duty, a duty we have given ourselves as rational creatures. We thus freely choose
(we will) to bind ourselves to the moral law. For Kant, choosing to obey the universal moral
law is the very nature of acting ethically.

The Rights Approach

The Rights approach to ethics is another non-consequentialist approach which derives much
of its current force from Kantian duty-based ethics, although it also has a history that dates
back at least to the Stoics of Ancient Greece and Rome, and has another influential current
which flows from work of the British empiricist philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). This
approach stipulates that the best ethical action is that which protects the ethical rights of those
who are affected by the action. It emphasizes the belief that all humans have a right to dignity.
This is based on a formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative that says: “Act in such a way
that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the
same time as an end and never simply as a means to an end.” The list of ethical rights is
debated; many now argue that animals and other non-humans such as robots also have rights.
Utilitarianism Examples in the Twentieth Century
During the twentieth century, utilitarianism evolved into narrower niches. There are
four classifications by which modern-day utilitarianism can be grouped. Those
classifications are ideal utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism, two-level
utilitarianism, and preference utilitarianism.

Ideal Utilitarianism
Ideal utilitarianism is an argument against utilitarianism being self-indulgent, or just a
general pursuit of pleasure. Instead, the argument is that there are several values
that need to be considered individually, and that raising the total amount of
happiness that each one of these values can provide will contribute to happiness
overall.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism says that no matter the situation, the action that is morally right is
the one that provides mankind with the most amount of pleasure. Rule utilitarianism
believes that the morally right action is the one that results from everyone following
the same moral rule, which then creates the highest level of happiness.

Two-Level Utilitarianism
Two-level utilitarianism splits act and rule utilitarianism into two parts: “specific rule
utilitarianism,” and “general rule utilitarianism.” When individuals are in charge of their
own decisions, they should stick to the specific rule form. However, when they are
involved in situations wherein human nature may sway them, then they should
adhere to the general rule form. Here, act utilitarianism is considered the “critical”
level of moral thinking, whereas rule utilitarianism is based on instinct.

Preference Utilitarianism
The principle of preference utilitarianism understands that when an individual is trying
to separate what is good from what is bad for him individually, the only standards that
should guide him are his own desires and preferences. However, it is understood that
people have irrational preferences at times, and so the ideas of “manifest” and “true”
preferences were born.
“Manifest” preferences are those preferences born from the behavior the individual
observes, and can therefore be faulty. “True” preferences are preferences the
individual would have if he was privy to all of the necessary information, and was in
the perfect frame of mind to make such a decision.

Consequentialism
Consequentialism is a doctrine that states that an action can only be moral if the
consequences it creates are moral, too. Put another way, morality is defined by
actions that produce the right kinds of consequences in the end. As utilitarianism
considers the end result of actions, it is a form of consequentialism. Generally, there
are three ways in which morality can be defined. Morality promotes:
 the spread of happiness, while relieving the amount of suffering in the world
 the creation of as much freedom as possible worldwide
 the survival of the species
While consequentialism may sound like a wonderful thing, it is actually controversial
in nature. When the concept is applied to the way others should conduct themselves,
the capability of discovering one’s own potential, respecting everyone as a whole,
and not interfering with the things that others want, it doesn’t sound so bad. However,
accepting opinion that morality must be upheld “regardless of the consequences,”
can be a recipe for disaster.
An example of utilitarianism that can be seen as consequentialism involves Ryan’s
decision to spend more time with his family. Ryan does this, not out of his love for his
family, but because he believes he can be a good example for others to follow, which
will improve society at large. This does not make Ryan’s actions genuine. Critics
argue that those who look to the consequences before acting, are not honest people
because they are not making their decisions from the heart. This makes
consequentialism both immoral and inhuman.

GE 2 (Ethics)

ACTIVITY NO. 1

Name: _________________________________________________ Date:

_________________

Course and Year: _______________________________________ Block:

________________

General Instructions:

1. Photocopy this activity sheet and accomplish it fully and properly.

2. Answer the questions given below using the spaces herein provided.

3. Submit it on time according to its schedule or wait for further notice. 

1. Give your own example of utilitarianism.
2. Enumerate Kant and Rights Theories
3. What do you understand about ‘Slavery is wrong’?