What are ethics

Sarah Elgohary 

Professor Marino

Introduction to ethics    

October 12 2015

ASSIGNMENTS 1 A: “ISMS” That Challenge Ethical Theory are human beings born to be moral creatures take home essay

Why are human beings born to be moral creatures what makes a good and bad Decision morally right or wrong? What is the foundation for ethics? What is ethics? there are two different definitions of ethics  In the dictionary The first definition of ethics Is the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct  the second definition of ethics Is  a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for a person or group,.  Ethics is the discipline of right of wrong values that we as a society makes meaningful standards for this values in both scientific personal or divine law or casual factors in my opinion. Since ethics is a branch of philosophy It Is a discipline like all sciences so we have to ask ourselves where the standards or systems of ethics come from do ethics come from scientific personal or divine law or casual factors from there/?  How do we evaluate these standards? Critical Thinking is the systematic evaluation of beliefs or statements based upon rational standards. In critical thinking claims are made, a claim is a statement, people want you to believe it; therefore; they make an appeal to you (emotionally)

     Before we talk about are 3 ethical theories of psychological egoism, subjective cultural relativism and objectivism or absolutism. We need to discuss the rules and fundamental principles of ethics as a whole. This principles of ethics Includes The Law of “Non-Contradiction” all laws or moral ethical standards have to have the “Standard of Reasonableness, this means that all laws have to make sense in Thought, the human mind and logic. Ethics has to have a form of consistency. Moral concepts are not based on logical standard;  if the rules, laws are random and not consistent. If everything changes, what is ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, or ‘wrong’? It is not a random “does whatever you want to do” attitude. Basically, it is two things that do not affirm or deny the same thing. Both acknowledge opinions are valid, but it contradicts one another. Therefore, is a violation of logic? Models of Ethical thinking with? One Criteria or paradigm (model) of an ethical way of looking at things. In addition, in each of the models there is consistency in each model because there are rule game governed by certain rules. 

Ethics cannot have Inconsistent Thinking, a Contradiction statement AN Example: Logically, one statement says if you do ‘good’, you will be rewarded in life, but the second statement says if you do ‘good’, you will be taken advantage of or fail. They both cannot be true at the same time. Both statements cannot be accepted at the same time, because it creates contradiction and it is illogical and inconsistent “Naturalistic Fallacy “Fallacy: error in thinking The Naturalistic Fallacy argues that incorrect or a mistake derives value of natural fact.  In other words, the mistake to think of something that exists carries some intrinsic value. Derives an ‘ought’ from something that is. The Naturalistic Fallacy Creates evaluation from a purely descriptive state of affairs. For example, an earthquake that has a magnitude of 8.3 is a natural event that costs billions of dollars in damage to buildings, homes, etc. and killed one hundred thousand people. An earthquake is something natural that happens with nature; it’s part of nature and therefore; is nature doing its thing. However, in this situation, if you feel like you want to kill them, then you ‘ought’ to do so.    Is it reasonable or logic if you feel to ‘ought’ to do something based on emotions? Fallacy says it would be a mistake to ‘ought’ to do something based on fact (In this example, it would be a mistake to act on your feelings and result to murder of the teenagers who mugged the two senior citizens) In other words, basing your feelings on what you ‘ought’ to do is not reasonable; therefore; it is a fallacy. In simpler terms, your descriptive state of affairs in this example is your emotions (furious, enraged and anger). These descriptive state of affairs are based on fact and if you believe you should act on these emotions (meaning you ‘ought’ to do something), then it creates a fallacy because you are responsible for your actions/have a say in how you respond to your feelings. Human decisions are not based on fact. But emotions are based on fact (out of our control) basically, the fallacy says you’re making a mistake. Facts are morally neutral.

    THE first ethical theory to explain where moral standards come is psychological egoism.  Psychological egoism states all human beings are born intrinsically selfish and self-centered.  In the theory of Psychological Egoism –People Need to satisfy personal needs first. You look out for yourself before you act on the needs of others. The opposite of psychological egoism is “Altruism “Is the – interests for others. If psychological egoism is true, we cannot oppose that – meaning, it cannot be changed. It is built into our nature that we act in our self-interest. According to psychological egoism people cannot be held responsible for their actions if the only actions that you commit are for yourself, then there is no room for moral values of right and wrong, there are no ethical standards in psychological egoism. In psychological egoism is Ethical Theory Possible? In psychological egoism is feeling good a motive or an affect?    If it is a consequence, it may change your thinking. May not be possible to oppose their self-centered natures based on psychological egoism and ethic of egoism. It makes you question: Are they linked together psychological egoism   is an obstacle to critical thinking because psychological egoism is only about your self-interests, you are the center of the argument. Therefore, people who believe in psychological egoism cannot - think critically because to think critically, we have to be more objective and break out of our self. Psychological egoism creates Personal bias, prejudices or preconceived attitudes. Prejudices means making a judgments before you have enough information. Psychological egoism raises the Question: Are self-interests linked to others around you? Psychological egoism is connected to the concept of Ethical Egoism – a form of the Naturalistic Fallacy. ‘If we are egocentric, we ‘ought’ and ‘should’ be concerned with ourselves. Psychological Egoism (“is” or a fact)    Ethic of Egoism Description = of our nature     ‘Ought’ to be egoistic. You don’t have a choice/no free will no right and wrong choices. We are stuck with what we are; therefore; how do you tell someone ‘ought’ to do something? You can’t.    Psychological egoism implies you consciously have to do something. You do not have a choice, you can act differently. You can’t describe it because it determines us.

.    The second ethical theory is subjective and cultural relativism .In the theory of Subjective Relativism  the fundamental principle is The philosophical belief Is truth and ethical standards are based on the beliefs of the individual all opinions are valid. If I believe ‘x’ is true, ‘x’ is true. It claims that all truth is subjective. Subjective Relativism argues that truth is personal subjective; which means there is no one, single truth, but only opinions or point of view that is equally valued. If you believe the concept, you deny the objective truth. It is reduced to opinion, there is no such thing as objective or universal truth. Subjective Relativism It is closed minded theory. We create or invent what is true. Where are moral standards if everything is subjective?  Individuals measure their own personal right and wrong; good and bad. The belief is the truth for the person. Logic refers to this as the “Subjective Fallacy “There is an error. If a person believes this subjective fallacy, the other person’s opinion is valid. For example: a person who is a racist, another person believes that person is an idiot and ignorant. They are both valid; which means the person who is a racist acknowledges what the other person is saying to be true as well.

Social or Cultural Relativism is a theory that mplies that beliefs of different societies and groups are equal in value and respect    Argues that every society has their own value.IN Social or Cultural Relativism  you Cannot be judged for better or worse; they are just different. You must respect a society even if they enslave people because it is different from another society. Local custom and behavior in a society is their own business. One is not better than the other. Subjectivism Personal Ethical Standards: Subjectivism is a form of ‘relativism THAT Denies ‘objective’ standards .Personal taste; preferences based on attitude and feelings they cannot argue about these things because they’re not debatable. Not discussable, indefinable. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE STANDARDS. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong. Everyone has their own tastes and attitudes. In Effect: Moral Relativism, i.e. “there are No permanent or ‘transcendent’ (above and beyond) standards, moral standards. In subjective the moral standards are the Social Contract: Rules of the game of society. You break the rules, there’s a price or consequence you have to pay.    Set of rules and regulations that preserve society. Example: Street lights exist to prevent accidents and regulate traffic; however; if a person doesn’t obey to this law, there could follow a consequence (such as a ticket fine).

The third theory is hard determinism in hard determinism “freedom of choice is not possible because our decisions and actions are “determined” (caused) by factors beyond our control.” Hard determinism is the denial of free will. In other words, hard determinists argue that there is no such thing as free will. You are under an illusion that you have choices in life. There are forces that are within nature that force you to act the way you do. Pushing you in a certain direction in life which is entirely out of your control. All events and human actions are caused by previous events in accordance with universal causal laws. Overall, hard-determinist says we are being controlled, we are pre-programmed and hard-wired. We are not consciously aware because causal factors are causing us to act the way we do (not based on influence). Denies free will (incompatible).Social Scientific Determinism: an empirical approach. Based on human nature. Nobody can choose their DNA, color of eyes/hair/skin tone. Instead, these are determined for us. We Genetically ARE pre-programmed/hard-wired to behave and react in specific pre-determined ways. A Consequence of hard determinism is not being responsibility for your actions BECAUSE Nature made it that way and must act accordingly (meaning there is no free will). You cannot overcome or contradict nature. In hard determinism you can’t be blamed for doing something positive or negative. If no free will is involved, there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because you are obeying the personal laws of your nature it is instinct, there is no choice. Things in nature make us act the way we do. Where we live determines our attitudes. Society and culture (who is around you) alters a person’s behavior and actions. Psychological experiences are casual factors that determine your behaviors.  

 Part c  of the three theories  I think that subjective relativism  is the most serious threat to real ethical  standards for all people in different societies to  follow whether they like it or not. we cannot have  order or a civilization if the opinions of every single  person in the world were valid. If everything is truth   then that would mean that it is ok to kill people in society. I know that the social contract is a set of rules for all people who believe in subjective relativism to follow.   Even the social contract is morally subjective to the different societies that invented their own rules There is no concrete deviance that each social contract is true so there is no real foundation for subjective  beliefs. Subjectivism is a form of ‘relativism THAT Denies ‘objective’ standard    Personal taste; preferences based on attitude and feelings Subjectivism cannot argue about these things because they’re not debatable. Not discussable, indefinable. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE STANDARDS. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong. Everyone has their own tastes and attitudes. In Effect: Moral Relativism, i.e. “No permanent or ‘transcendent’ (above and beyond) standards.  As a result if all opinions are subjective and true then that would mean that social contracts are not true if some people thought that the social contracts are false then their opinions of the social contract being false is also true. There is no way that there can be any type of moral standards if all of our principles  are subjective because due to the idea that everyone is right and they can never be judged as wrong subjective relativists are all morally infallible because all of the laws that they make in their social contracts will be unreasonable, inconvenience, inconsistent, and all of the laws would contradict each other even the  social contract contradicts itself. A solid ethical standard moral standards can never fully be reached if all laws are unreasonable contradicts each other and the laws are inconsistent with some people.  

Part d the ethical objective position counters and challenges subjective relativism in every way. Objectivism: is ethical position which maintains the moral principles can have objective validity whereby certain actions are right or wrong in them. Moral Absolutism/Objectivism Absolute good things and absolute bad things and in-between are a gray area. Objective values Gives us principles how to get through the complexity of our lives. Objective values or laws Transcended any subjective criteria or goes beyond. Objective values are intrinsically right or wrong  built into the act itself. a Question to think about: If God is a prescription (tells how a person ‘ought’ and ‘should’ behave) for moral behavior, can someone who doesn’t believe in God believe in moral objectivism? In other words, can an atheist be morally grounded yes moral principles do not have to be grounded in god they can be grounded  in something else like society for example the Declaration of Independence: is Suggesting ‘Absolute’ or ‘Objective’ Values by stating the fact that it is Self-evident that we are all created equal this Is obvious, apparent and doesn’t require experimentation. .We are equal in humanity and we cannot have our rights be taken away from anybody. Everyone has the opportunity to fulfill life whatever way they choose. Every single person has the same human rights; however; not the same opportunity necessarily. Another example of objective or absolute values Is Universal Declaration of Human Rights created by the United Nations The government did not create them. These laws are from a transcended source – humanity guarantees these rights. These rights apply absolutely and completely too all persons. Subjectivism is a Personal view. Relativism Argument is that all opinions are true. Then the opinion that “moral relativism is false” must be true.  Subjective relative leads to Logical fallacy and contradiction. On the other hand, Objectivism is beyond cultural values and personal taste or moral standards.