Midterm Flashcards
Ethics Vs. Conventional Morality
- Conventional morality is when majority of people believe about a certain moral stance
- Morality consists of what a person ought to do in order to conform to society’s norms of behaviour whereas ethical theory concerns the philosophical reason for our against the morality stipulated by society
Ethics Vs. the law
- First, what is legally allowed is not necessarily legal.
- Second, What is ethically right is not necessarily legal.
Ethics and Religious Morality
The principle of the separation of church and state
There is also the problem of Disgareement and Diversity which stems from how multicultured canada is and how even branches from the same religion cannot agree. There is no way to validating their authority-claim so it becomes a problematic basis of public morality. (I.E. the bible if vague so it can be interpreted differently)
Intuition and Conscience
Intuition in morality is the sense of “just knowing” that something is right or wrong, by means of a strong feeling or hunch.
Conscience is often described as a voice inside one’s head which tells one to do or not do something. It is subject to the same limitations as intuition when it is pre-reflective or expresses unexamined prejudice.
Both of these are really important sources but they must be guided by education through ethical theory.
What is Cultural Relativism?
The main idea of Cultural Relativism is that there are different moral codes in each society, but no source to appeal to which can provide a universal referent on right and wrong. The differing views are all we have. Every society has its own moral code, and none are in any position to claim superiority. All codes are equal, and all are equally limited. Thus, no moral code can take precedence in a case of disagreement, because there is no way to determine which is right or wrong.
Why do people accept cultural relativism?
Bc they think there is no universal objective morality
Bc they think that the values of different cultures are inccomunsable (there is no common standard to asses them by)
Bc they want to aviod cultural imperialism and chauvinism
Critics of cultural relativism
- Cultures are hard to define
- Cultural relativism nexuses evil regimes
- There are underline ethical Commonalities (Many apparent moral differences express underlying commonality. )
- Relativism is a philosophical inconsistent
(It says don’t judge others, but says this in a universal way. But how can the wrongness of cultural imperialism be the only universal?)
Cultural relativism tends to collapse into individual relativism.
Kohlberg 6 Stages of moral reasoning
- Morality of obedience. Do what you’re told.
- Morality of instrumental egoism and exchange. Let’s make a deal.
- Morality of interpersonal concordance. Be considerate, nice, and kind: you’ll make friends.
- Morality of law and duty to the social order. Everyone in society is obligated to and protected by the law.
- Morality of consensus building procedures. You are obligated to the arrangements that are agreed to by due process.
- The morality of nonarbitrary social cooperation. Morality is defined by how rational and impartial people would ideally organize cooperation.
All-purpose stage-development scheme
- One is at a pre-moral utterly selfish stage.
- One is still selfish, but at least one sees that there are others out there, and one decides they have a right to be selfish, too.
- Whatever seems to win strokes from the crowd is the highest good.
- Whatever authority says is right, is right.
- One has developed one’s own code of rights and wrongs, which one applies universally - such as honesty, hospitality, murder: one suspects that everyone in every culture should be honest and hospitable and eschew killing people. (Stage 5 people may be cultural relativists as far as styles of honesty and hospitality are concerned, but the underlying principles apply to all.)
- One has to disobey one’s own code of rights and wrongs in order to make the best judgement in a given predicament. For example, one would lie to the Gestapo in order to save innocent lives.
What is heinz Dilemma
Kohlberg tended to equate being ethical with moral reasoning. But moral reasoning is only one aspect of what it takes to be ethical. Others include:
- Sensitivity in interpreting the situation.
- Motivation to prioritize ethical values over other desires.
- Character, having the courage or discipline to implement one’s decision.
Heinz Dilemma critic
-Kohlberg’s ranking of moral stages has also been challenged by a student of his, Carol Gilligan. She criticized his tendency to equate responses based on universal principles with high-level moral development while ignoring those based on personal caring and relationship (Cluster C of responses to the Heinz dilemma). As a result, Kohlberg’s scoring system tended to rank females on average at a lower stage of moral reasoning than males.
Why be Moral? (Subjective Relativism)
-Subjective relativism (moral sketpisms): This is the idea that morality is simply a matter of individual opinion or taste, which some have the power to impose on others. There is no rational or objective basis for ethics.
Maslow heirachy
Maslow arranged human needs on a scale from the most basic to the highest. It is only after the basic ones are met that an individual can focus on the higher ones.
-Hierarchy of Human Needs
o Physiological needs (food, shelter)
o Safety needs (security, stability, freedom from fear)
o Love needs (belongingness, intimacy, affection)
o Esteem needs (respect, recognition, sense of achievement)
o Self-Actualization (fulfilling one’s potential)
What is act utilitarianism?
a. Only commandment is “Thou shalt maximize utility.”
i. But this instruction is too vague to be a useful moral principle. Act utilitarianism leaves a lot of room for expediency or self-deception when one is tempted to take the easy road and tries to convince oneself that it may promote utility anyway.
What is utilitarianism?
-Ultalitarianism is a theory based on happiness and consequences. It holds the ethics is about promoting happiness, and we should give equal consideration to the happiness of all. It further holds that the moral worth of actions is measured by their consequences. it was created by Betham and Mill
