Ethics

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending,

and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers
today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas:
metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates
where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they
merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our
individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the
issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical
judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative
ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards
that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the
good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the
consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves
examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal
rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or
nuclear war.
By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics,
discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The
lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics
are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic
since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends
on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the
right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that
procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where
do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"
1. Metaethics
The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of
metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of
ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of
ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the
field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It
covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology. Two issues,
though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality
exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the
underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.
a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and
Relativism
Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe.
Some things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and
perhaps other things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and
gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering
specifically whether moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like
realm, or simply human conventions. There are two general directions that
discussions of this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly.
Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values
are objective in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond
subjective human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or
eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as
they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time.
The most dramatic example of this view is Plato, who was inspired by the
field of mathematics. When we look at numbers and mathematical relations,
such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless concepts that never change, and
apply everywhere in the universe. Humans do not invent numbers, and
humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the eternal character of
mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a spirit-
like realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are
also abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are
spiritual objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral
principles together under the heading of "eternal law" which were also
frequently seen as spirit-like objects. 17 th century British philosopher Samuel
Clarke described them as spirit-like relationships rather than spirit-like
objects. In either case, though, they exist in a spirit-like realm. A different
other-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality is divine
commands issuing from God's will. Sometimes called voluntarism (or divine
command theory), this view was inspired by the notion of an all-
powerful God who is in control of everything. God simply wills things, and
they become reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills
human life into existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values into
existence. Proponents of this view, such as medieval philosopher William of
Ockham, believe that God wills moral principles, such as "murder is wrong,"
and these exist in God's mind as commands. God informs humans of these
commands by implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these
commands in scripture.
The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of
morality follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that
articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective
status of moral values. Technically, skeptics did not reject moral values
themselves, but only denied that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as
divine commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly
human inventions, a position that has since been called moral relativism.
There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first
is individual relativism, which holds that individual people create their own
moral standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the
superhuman creates his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the
slave-like value system of the masses. The second is cultural relativismwhich
maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one's society - and not
simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by
Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William
Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, this-
worldly approaches to the metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute
and universal nature of morality and hold instead that moral values in fact
change from society to society throughout time and throughout the world.
They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing examples of values
that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes about
polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice.
b. Psychological Issues in Metaethics
A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral
judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be
moral. We might explore this subject by asking the simple question, "Why be
moral?" Even if I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don't kill and
don't steal, this does not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically
compelled to act on them. Some answers to the question "Why be moral?"
are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified,
or to fit in with society.
i. Egoism and Altruism
One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of
humans. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if
not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action
seems selfless, such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for
this, such as experiencing power over other people. This view is
called psychological egoism and maintains that self-oriented interests
ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological
egoism is a view called psychological hedonism which is the view
that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our actions.
18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler agreed that instinctive
selfishness and pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler
argued that we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show
benevolence to others. This view is called psychological altruism and
maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive
benevolence.
ii. Emotion and Reason
A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of
reason in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement
"abortion is morally wrong," am I making a rational assessment or only
expressing my feelings? On the one side of the dispute, 18 th century British
philosopher David Hume argued that moral assessments involve our
emotions, and not our reason. We can amass all the reasons we want, but
that alone will not constitute a moral assessment. We need a distinctly
emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason might
be of service in giving us the relevant data, but, in Hume's words, "reason is,
and ought to be, the slave of the passions." Inspired by Hume's anti-
rationalist views, some 20th century philosophers, most notably A.J. Ayer,
similarly denied that moral assessments are factual descriptions. For
example, although the statement "it is good to donate to charity" may on the
surface look as though it is a factual description about charity, it is not.
Instead, a moral utterance like this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I
am expressing my personal feelings of approval about charitable donations
and I am in essence saying "Hooray for charity!" This is called
the emotive element insofar as I am expressing my emotions about some
specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am trying to get you to donate to
charity and am essentially giving the command, "Donate to charity!" This is
called the prescriptive element in the sense that I am prescribing some
specific behavior.
From Hume's day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have
opposed these emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics) and
instead argued that moral assessments are indeed acts of reason.
18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is a case in point. Although
emotional factors often do influence our conduct, he argued, we should
nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Instead, true moral action is motivated
only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires. A recent rationalist
approach, offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was proposed in direct opposition to
the emotivist and prescriptivist theories of Ayer and others. Baier focuses
more broadly on the reasoning and argumentation process that takes place
when making moral choices. All of our moral choices are, or at least can be,
backed by some reason or justification. If I claim that it is wrong to steal
someone's car, then I should be able to justify my claim with some kind of
argument. For example, I could argue that stealing Smith's car is wrong since
this would upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief at risk of
getting caught. According to Baier, then, proper moral decision making
involves giving the best reasons in support of one course of action versus
another.
iii. Male and Female Morality
A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly
female approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences
between men and women. Discussions of this issue focus on two claims: (1)
traditional morality is male-centered, and (2) there is a unique female
perspective of the world which can be shaped into a value theory. According
to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is male-centered since it
is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such
as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing
societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were
then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules,
such as lists of rights and duties. Women, by contrast, have traditionally had
a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks
require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using
the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of
morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in
each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the
situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with
male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs
his required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the
situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is
offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to
traditional male-modeled moral systems.

2. Normative Ethics
Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and
wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper
behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We
should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not
want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car.
Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help
feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically
determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the
Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize,
assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory
that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other
normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good
character traits.
The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate
criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles.
Three strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and
(3) consequentialist theories.
a. Virtue Theories
Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely
defined rules of conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't steal." Presumably, I
must learn these rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the
rules. Virtue ethics, however, places less emphasis on learning rules, and
instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character, such
as benevolence (see moral character). Once I've acquired benevolence, for
example, I will then habitually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue
theory is one of the oldest normative traditions in Western philosophy,
having its roots in ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in
particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage,
temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity,
self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to advocating good
habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad
character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and
vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character
traits are developed in one's youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for
instilling virtues in the young.
Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate
our emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I
should develop the virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing
danger. Analyzing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall
at a mean between more extreme character traits. With courage, for
example, if I do not have enough courage, I develop the disposition of
cowardice, which is a vice. If I have too much courage I develop the
disposition of rashness which is also a vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an
easy task to find the perfect mean between extreme character traits. In fact,
we need assistance from our reason to do this. After Aristotle, medieval
theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with three Christian ones,
or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest in virtue theory
continued through the middle ages and declined in the 19th century with the
rise of alternative moral theories below. In the mid 20 th century virtue theory
received special attention from philosophers who believed that more recent
ethical theories were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and actions,
rather than on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) defended
the central role of virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are
grounded in and emerge from within social traditions.
b. Duty Theories
Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings,
such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories
base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These
theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or
duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are
also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are
obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our
actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it results
in some great benefit, such as financial savings. There are four central duty
theories.
The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel
Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to
God, duties to oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our duties towards
God, he argued that there are two kinds:
1. a theoretical duty to know the existence
and nature of God, and
2. a practical duty to both inwardly and
outwardly worship God.
Concerning our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts:

1. duties of the soul, which involve

developing one's skills and talents, and
2. duties of the body, which involve not
harming our bodies, as we might through
gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing
oneself.
Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between
absolute duties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional
duties, which are the result of contracts between people. Absolute duties are
of three sorts:

1. avoid wronging others,

2. treat people as equals, and
3. promote the good of others.
Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of
which is the duty is to keep one's promises.

A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a

"right" is a justified claim against another person's behavior - such as my
right to not be harmed by you (see also human rights). Rights and duties are
related in such a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of
another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Smith,
then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights
and duties. The most influential early account of rights theory is that of
17th century British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of
nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health, liberty or
possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God.
Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by
Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we
deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of
property, movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four
features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights
are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments.
Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to
country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all
people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they
are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another
person, such as by selling myself into slavery.
A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single
principle of duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral
duties to oneself and others, such as developing one's talents, and keeping
our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is a more
foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a
single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the "categorical
imperative." A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different
from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we
have, for example, "If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to
college." By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an action,
irrespective of one's personal desires, such as "You ought to do X." Kant
gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative, but one is
especially direct: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end.
That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as
mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions
toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to
charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent
value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end
whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something else. It is
wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car since I would be treating her
as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates
the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would
be wrong since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of
my misery. Kant believes that the morality of all actions can be determined
by appealing to this single principle of duty.
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher
W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th
century counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are "part of the
fundamental nature of the universe." However, Ross's list of duties is much
shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions:
 Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
 Reparation: the duty to compensate
others when we harm them
 Gratitude: the duty to thank those who
help us
 Justice: the duty to recognize merit
 Beneficence: the duty to improve the
conditions of others
 Self-improvement: the duty to improve
our virtue and intelligence
 Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure
others
Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two
conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun
and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my
neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take
vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to
return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me
to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will
intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my
apparent or prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of nonmaleficence
emerges as my actual duty and I should not return the gun.
c. Consequentialist Theories
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the
consequences of our actions. According to consequentialism, correct moral
conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's
consequences:
Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable.

Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the

good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine
whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences.
If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If
the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from
the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the action is the sole
determining factor of its morality.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18 th century by philosophers
who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to
experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of
questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism
is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of actions. Most
versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general
principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify
which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant. Three
subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:
 Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right
if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable only to
the agent performing the action.
 Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right
if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to
everyone except the agent.
 Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if
the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different
groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories
are rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider the
following example. A woman was traveling through a developing country
when she witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several
times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise,
the driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road
the driver explained that in his country if someone assists an accident victim,
then the police often hold the assisting person responsible for the accident
itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be held responsible
for the death. The driver continued explaining that road accident victims are
therefore usually left unattended and often die from exposure to the
country's harsh desert conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism, the
woman in this illustration would only be concerned with the consequences of
her attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision to
drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of ethical
altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of her action
as others are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those
consequences reveals that assisting the victim would be the morally correct
choice, irrespective of the negative consequences that result for her. On the
principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences for both
herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would
need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action.
i. Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of
utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham
proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and
thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right
or wrong. This aspect of Bentham's theory is known as act-utilitiarianism.
Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which
results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only
consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This
aspect of Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point
out limitations in both of these aspects.
First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time
on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be
spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work.
But prohibiting leisure activities doesn't seem reasonable. More significantly,
according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be
morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the
disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-
utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a
behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that
rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act
utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-
utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as
"stealing is wrong." Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable
consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is
true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then,
offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as
stealing my neighbor's car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule
against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because
adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John
Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are
the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too
restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are
not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty
and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to
this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves
tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and
not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference
utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills our
preferences.
ii. Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
We have seen (in Section 1.b.i) that Hobbes was an advocate of the
methaethical theory of psychological egoism—the view that all of our actions
are selfishly motivated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a
normative theory known as social contract theory, which is a type of rule-
ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is
better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. For
without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish
interests. Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk.
Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of
rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these rules
would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these
rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are enforced. As
selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property once
their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor.
Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these
rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these
rules.
3. Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of
specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or
euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into
convenient groups such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental
ethics, and sexual ethics. Generally speaking, two features are necessary for
an issue to be considered an "applied ethical issue." First, the issue needs to
be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people both
for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for
example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that this
practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control would be an
applied ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and
against gun control.
The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it
must be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us
with an array of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in
the military, involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic
versus socialistic business practices, public versus private health care
systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are
controversial and have an important impact on society, they are not all moral
issues. Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social policy is to
help make a given society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as
traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern
more universally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid lying, and
are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social policy
and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially prohibited and
immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For example,
many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is immoral, but may not
feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws
punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents
in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the
neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a
resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify
as an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere social
policy: it must be morally relevant as well.

In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the
issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by
consulting our normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a
given abortion produces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to
act-utilitarianism, it would be morally acceptable to have the abortion.
Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from
which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the
stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from
using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific
issue. The usual solution today to this stalemate is to consult several
representative normative principles on a given issue and see where the
weight of the evidence lies.

a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics

Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a
challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused,
such as a version of act-egoism that might focus only on an action's short-
term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on
both sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that appeal
to duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a
nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones
most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:

 Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent

to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for the individual in
question.
 Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to
which an action produces beneficial
consequences for society.
 Principle of benevolence: help those in
need.
  Principle of paternalism: assist others in
pursuing their best interests when they
cannot do so themselves.
 Principle of harm: do not harm others.
 Principle of honesty: do not deceive
others.
 Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the
law.
 Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a
person's freedom over his/her actions or
physical body.
 Principle of justice: acknowledge a
person's right to due process, fair
compensation for harm done, and fair
distribution of benefits.
 Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to
life, information, privacy, free expression,
and safety.
The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles
and are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The
first two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist
since they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the
individual or society. The remaining principles are duty-based. The principles
of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on
duties we have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the
various rights are based on moral rights.

An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied

ethical discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to
a baby with severe mental and physical disabilities. Among other
complications, the infant, known as Baby Doe, had its stomach disconnected
from its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this
stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want
to raise a severely disabled child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food,
and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents' decision, and
six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been
performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery derive
from the infant's right to life and the principle of paternalism which stipulates
that we should pursue the best interests of others when they are incapable
of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective surgery derive from
the personal and social disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If
Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in any case it
probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent's
perspective, Baby Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional
and financial burden. When examining both sides of the issue, the parents
and the courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were stronger
than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in
the best interests of the infant, given the poor quality of life it would endure.
Second, the status of Baby Doe's right to life was not clear given the severity
of the infant's mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more
than merely having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be
present. The issue here involves what is often referred to as moral
personhood, and is central to many applied ethical discussions.

b. Issues in Applied Ethics

As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today,
some of which will be briefly mentioned here.

Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings.

Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life
and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues are
more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues
arise about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of
fetuses, the status of unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues
arise about patient rights and physician's responsibilities, such as the
confidentiality of the patient's records and the physician's responsibility to
tell the truth to dying patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the specific issues
of the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether physicians
can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues concern medical
experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary commitment, and
the rights of the mentally disabled. Finally, end of life issues arise about the
morality of suicide, the justifiability of suicide intervention, physician assisted
suicide, and euthanasia.
The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the
social responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of
corporate entities, deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee
rights, job discrimination, affirmative action, drug testing, and whistle
blowing.
Issues in environmental ethics often overlaps with business and medical
issues. These include the rights of animals, the morality of animal
experimentation, preserving endangered species, pollution control,
management of environmental resources, whether eco-systems are entitled
to direct moral consideration, and our obligation to future generations.
Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy,
sexual relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs.
Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment,
nuclear war, gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and
racism.
Morality governs private, personal interactions. Ethics governs professional
interactions. ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes
of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an
individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

Morality demands that men should act from a sense of ethical duty.
Morality has no such enforcing authority from the state. It is autonomous
(coming from the inner life of men). It governs the inner life of men. If the
promissory note is time-barred, then the legal duty of the debtor turns into
moral duty.

The morality also applies to all persons. But it depends from person to
person, from religion to religion, society to society. It is his/her pleasure to
follow or not.
Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas
ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social
setting.

Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas
ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social
setting.

One professional example of ethics conflicting with morals is the work of a defense
attorney. A lawyer’s morals may tell her that murder is reprehensible and that
murderers should be punished, but her ethics as a professional lawyer, require her
to defend her client to the best of her abilities, even if she knows that the client is
guilty.

Why we Because society says it is the right thing to Because we believe in something
do it? do. being right or wrong.

Flexibility Ethics are dependent on others for Usually consistent, although can
definition. They tend to be consistent change if an individual’s beliefs
within a certain context, but can vary change.
between contexts.

The A person strictly following Ethical A Moral Person although perhaps

"Gray" Principles may not have any Morals at all. bound by a higher covenant, may
Likewise, one could violate Ethical choose to follow a code of ethics
Principles within a given system of rules in as it would apply to a system.
order to maintain Moral integrity. "Make it fit"