Ethics Lecture Ten

Ethics Lecture Ten 30/11/05

Today I would like to continue our discussion of Chuang Tzu and ethics.

Chuang Tzu offers itself to many different understandings – today I would like to offer you just three – they are not the only ways to read this work.

The purpose of the Chuang Tzu is self-transformation – but it is not what is usually thought of self-transformation – what self-transformation usually means is a big change in what one is – instead – we are to assume that the author (Chuang Tzu) has already been transformed – is already changed.

For the reader – for us – the Chuang Tzu presents to us styles of life that are meant to be attractive to us – styles of life of which we have no experience.

At the same time the style of life which we are living now is subtly shown to be foolish – and the spontaneous and free life is presented as a real possibility.

The word “approximate” is important here.

Approximate – almost correct, but not exact.

Chuang Tzu does not suggest that there is only one kind very good life to be followed.

Spiritual power can be expressed in a lot of different styles of life and a variety of physical forms.

Also: what Chuang Tzu is suggesting is a wonderful style of life – cannot be describe exactly.

Many times through the Chuang Tzu – he says: maybe this is what I mean – maybe it’s not – Chuang Tzu is always suggesting other meanings for what is written – this is why much of the Chuang Tzu has a lot of humor and jokiness though it.

Another reason that Chuang Tzu does this is because of the way in which he hopes to transform the reader – not by giving them a formula to follow – but in a very different way.

Chuang Tzu’s main emphasis is on: spontaneity and freedom.

Non-Moral Improvement

The transformation at the heart of the Chuang Tzu cannot be understood just in terms of moral improvement.

The movement to the style of life that Chuang Tzu is suggesting may not included becoming a more ethical person – but it does involve having a better life.

To begin to understand this we might a basic difference between:

(quote 1)

(1) Ethics (good and bad)

(2) A life that is better or worse. (style of life)

“I should be able to live my life exactly as I please – as long as it is not hurting anyone else”

In Western ethics the idea of good or bad has usually be limited to those things that might harm another person (J.S Mill, On Liberty) – and in modern Western society it is important that there should be a private part of life not subject to control by others.

There has been a strong tendency in Western ethics to limit ethics to the first category – what harms people – and to NOT include the second category in ethics.

These two are much closer together in Eastern ethical philosophy.

In fact, in Western ethics there has been a strong focus on (1) has led to ethical theory dividing itself into two areas:

(quote 2)

Western ethics has focused on:

(1) Society’s control of the individual (legal, political, ethical)

(2) The individual’s right to independence.

Aristotle: ‘the contemplative life is best for the human being.’

G.E. Moore (1873-1958) Principia Ethica (1903)

This makes it very hard for some Western ethical philosophers to understand what meant by style of life ethics, such as we find in the Chuang Tzu.

There have been some exceptions - such as Aristotle – who we have mentioned – who suggests that the contemplative life is best for the human being – but we cannot say that it is unethical – bad – to live a life that is not contemplative.

We also would not understand the last chapter of Principia Ethica – where Moore talks about those things that are the greatest goods for us to associate with – personal affections and aesthetic enjoyments.

The Chuang Tzu is NOT about ethics – in the (1) sense. There are no rules offered that you should keep or not keep.

The transformation in is not primarily an ethical change – but a change in how one thinks and feels – and in the new behavior that expresses this change.

One of the key insights – one of the things that the Chuang Tzu says is: a person can be ethically good and still have a very unsatisfying life (in other words, not achieve the goal of ethics which is to have a happy and satisfying life) – of course, someone could be ethically bad and have an unsatisfying life as well.

Becoming Spontaneous

(quote 3)

emotions

motivation and conduct

What is spontaneity?

spontaneity is the is part of all thought and action

some people are more spontaneous than others

The transformation in the Chuang Tzu is between one’s emotions and motivation and conduct.

We can look at this connection between emotions and motivation and conduct by looking again at this idea of spontaneity.

The main idea is: we are not creating our thoughts – they are appearing spontaneously – you do not know what you are going to think next.

Mozart: “I do not know from where my musical ideas come from – they do not feel like they are mine”

This idea of thoughts coming from some unknown place is right through the Chuang Tzu:

(quote 4)

“Pleasure in things and anger against them, sadness and joy, forethought and regret, change and immobility, idle influences that initiate our gestures – music coming out of emptiness … no one knows from what soil they spring” – Chuang Tzu, No. 50

These spontaneous thoughts can undermine our sense of who we are – or who we think we are.

But I need NOT ACT on my spontaneous thoughts or desires – remember: this is Kant’s notion of “duty” – but in the Chuang Tzu the point is to see this at the beginning of a chain of thought not at the end.

The Chuang Tzu is suggesting, at the very least, that we lessen the urgency of our desires – and to act in the knowledge of our inherent freedom – our always already free state from desire – is to act, by definition, spontaneously.

(quote 5)

“where desires and cravings are deep, the impulse which is from Heaven is shallow” – Chuang Tzu, No. 84

“[it is best that a person] does not inwardly wound his person by likes and dislikes, the he constantly goes by the spontaneous and does not add anything to the process of life” – Chuang Tzu, No. 82

No effort – what is put in it place – re-cognition – recognition not intention.

That were we might say it is the overcoming of desire that leads to freedom – the Chuang Tzi – and Daoism more generally points to the idea that we are always already free of desire – if we can but just recognize it – and from that freedom from desire flows that spontaneous free energy and creativity that expresses itself as the skillful means of spontaneous ethical action.

It is through this re-cognition that deeper regions of the mind are accessed.

Fluidity and Character

The self is fluid and multilayered.

Chuang Tzu says that there are benefits to staying in touch – in connection with these deeper layers – that energy and creativity can be released and help to change one’s thought and behaviour.

What about the negatives of this idea of a fluid self: the inability to take responsibility and to maintain a consistent character.

But is there a deeper responsibility – to take responsibility for that which takes responsibility.

What most strongly comes under pressure is the idea of character – it requires constancy.

(quote 6)

“What constancy requires is a high level of predictability in decisions involving trust and responsibility or core requirements of morality, and a degree of stability in one’s basic attitudes and feelings toward others” – Joel J. Kupperman, Learning from Asian Philosophy.

“Constancy and sincerity do not require that a person never change their mind, but they do require that changes not be abrupt and capricious” ” – Joel J. Kupperman, Learning from Asian Philosophy.

Ethics Lecture Eight

Ethics - Lecture Eight 23/11/05


Today we will look how tradition and community affect the formation of self – particularly as it appears in Confucius and in relation to Aristotle.

(quote 1)

We will look at three areas:

(1) Community and tradition are factors in the formation of the ‘self’.

(2) How communities and traditions form the ‘self’ is a major deciding factor in the excellence of the ‘self’.

(3) Confucius gives a very good account of this process – especially as it progresses in advance education.

We will look at the early stages – childhood – in the development of self. Then look at the formation of self during the teenage years and how one becomes a really good person.

The Development in Childhood of the Foundation of Self

(quote 2)

“the community often underestimates to what extent a long and intricate childhood history has restricted a youth’s further choice of identity change”
- Erik Erikson, Identity, Youth, and Crisis (1968).

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics – is full of comments on the ethical importance of early upbringing and on how it should be managed.

Confucius’s leading student Master Yu has much to say on this:

(quote 3)

“Those who in private life behave well towards their parents and elder brothers, in public life seldom show a disposition to resist the authority of their superiors” – Master Yu, Analects

“We ought to be brought up in a particular way form our very youth, as Plato says, so as to delight in and to be pained by the things that we ought …” – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

“In educating the young we steer them by the rudders of pleasure and pain …” – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

Good family relations are the trunk of goodness.

It is developing the right “habits” in childhood that is central for Aristotle – those “habits” are created by steering the young with the rudders of pleasure and pain.

In other words, good habits need to be associated with pleasure and bad habits need to be associated with pain.

But this idea of developing habits by connecting them with pain has its limits – they seem to have power when the circumstances are familiar and less power when the circumstances are not familiar – such as war.

For Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics - a good set of habits only gives us the foundation of personal goodness – it is not the goodness itself - the habits should come before hearing the philosophy of good.

In the Nichomachean Ethics talks about how a good child becomes a good person:

(quote 4)

“The soul of the student must first have been cultivated by habits for noble joy and noble hatred, like earth which is to nourish the seed …The character, then, must somehow be there already with a kinship to excellence ...” – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics.

But how do we create good children?

This is where Aristotle and Confucius are very different – Aristotle thought what were needed were the right laws.

It is well-known that Confucius did not think that it was laws that brought about ethical development – ethics.

(quote 5)

“I could try a civil suit [court case] as well as anyone. But better still to bring it about that there were not civil suits” – Confucius, Analects

“Govern the people by regulations, keep order among them by punishments, and they will flee from you, and lose all self-respect” – Confucius, Analects

To Confucius the law should be there as a last resort – Confucius would say that any society or community that needs to use laws to maintain good and ethical relations between people has become corrupted.

Confucius would have rejected Aristotle’s emphasis on rules in the upbringing of children – what were more important were good role models – good examples.

When talking about leaders Confucius says that it is the leader’s own goodness which changes and makes good the behavior of those around him.

Confucius would say that if there is greed among our leaders that this only encourages a feeling of greed that causes crime in the general community.

Just as leaders should be good role models – set a good example – so should parents be a good example to their children – good parents – like good leaders encourage goodness in children – Confucius thinks that punishment is a undesirable last resort.

What is central is for Confucius is that tradition and community values enter the lives of children through their parents.

For Confucius – a major role of parents was to show children how the child’s actions may be seen by other in the community – this is the educating of the child in basic social life.

Though tradition – particularly the songs and stories of the community that the child learns – they find out about all the ways of being good and of being bad – and what actions are rejected by the community.

Many psychologists and philosophers would say that a child’s personality is formed by the time that they become teenagers.

Jean-Paul Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, says that the choice of self in childhood structures all the rest of the choices that we make throughout the rest of lives – for Sartre, this is what makes people very predictable.

The freedom that is central to Sartre’s philosophy is either variations on what is shaped by the self we choose in childhood – or the idea that we could rechoose this childhood choice of self – and so begin to behave differently.

We may think that the personality is largely formed by the time we are teenagers – but if we think of virtue or goodness as being a part of that self – then we can see the further development of character leaves much to be decided.

Becoming Really Good

Confucius thought that this further development of goodness – from the partly formed self of the child going into their teenage years – required ethical education.

Confucius thought that in teaching the student that the teacher should just give the student some of the subject and allow them to complete the rest – this was important especially in ethical instruction – because it made the student active rather than passive – which is important if the student is to make the ethics their own.

This making of ethics you own Confucius saw as a very gradual process – many, many, adjustments to our character.

All of this requires though – a self that is close to goodness – and this is what should be accomplished during the childhood period.

There was a progression to this ethical education:
(quote 6)

“Let a man be first incited by the Book of Songs, then give a firm footing by the study of ritual, and finally perfected by music” – Confucius, Analects

To Confucius good music was ethically important – it was more than “bells and drums” and had the power psychologically to balance us and make us more ethically aware.

One of the ways in which we can begin to see more clearly the role of tradition and community in the Confucian process of making a person good – is if we continue our contrast of Confucius with Aristotle.

But first – let’s just review what we have looked at so far:

(quote 7)

- a basic way of thinking and acting in the world is formed by our parents, community, and tradition by the time that we are teenagers – learning to love what is good and hate what is bad.
- ethical education beyond this is seen by both Aristotle and Confucius as intellectual
- for Aristotle this ethical education is based on being able to make better choices
- for Confucius this ethical education is based on training in emotion and ritual

So one of the ways that we can begin to see the differences between them is to think of having to make an important decision:

- for Aristotle there will be a range of choices – and along with your own ability to choose well – you may also get advice from friends, etc – but the important thing is to judge and choose well.
- for Confucius it is important to see that there are more than one person involved in the decision.

Training in ritual and music helps not to have narrow views – to be able to see the other person’s point of view –why? – because Confucius thought ritual and music often involve performance by more than one person – so that one learns to relate to others – but Confucius also thought that ritual and music help us to understand performance and to Confucius ethics was as much about performance more than it is about thought.

It was tradition that, Confucius thought, was a presentation of a good self – not only as a source of advice and inspiration – but also a role-model.

Confucius saw the parent-child relationship like this – the child models themselves on the good example of the parents – who have modeled themselves on their parents, etc.

Confucius thought that ritual and music capture and express styles of behavior – when performing music or ritual – one enters into these and makes them part of themselves.

Confucius thought community important because our choice takes place in the context of a variety of points of view – like David Hume, Confucius thought that we should take seriously the opinions of others in the community – they may see something about ourselves that we cannot.

There are some philosophers in the Western tradition for whom community and tradition are important:

Alasdair MacIntyre
David Wong – who argues that effective agency requires relationships within the community.
Hume and Hegel - both give importance to tradition and community in ethics.

But it is Confucius for whom tradition and community are very important in the later stages of development of a good self.

Confucius believes that the self that a person develops will be based on a layer of imitation of parents (who have imitated their parents – tradition) as well as behavior that has been encouraged by parents.

It at this stage that the child becoming an adult – can enter into the advanced education of ritual and music – as the basis of building the good self.

Ethics Lecture Six

Ethics – Lecture Six 16/11/05


Both Confuciusian (and other Asian ethical theories) and, in Western philosophy, Aristotelian ethics could be said to be concerned with formations of the self (subject).

Or: we could say the development of the self.

Explain: formation of self or development of self.

Who we are is closely connected to what we choose – in fact some people some people might go as far to say that who you are IS the choices that you make.

Lets begin with the look at the simple development of a person – who they are – and then look as some philosophical views the development of self.

These are some developmental terms to do with the formation of self.

(quote one)

Temperament

Personality

Character

Even when a baby is very small we might say that the baby has it own way of responding to certain events – loud sounds make it cry – it likes to watch TV, etc. – this we might call temperament.

Later when that child grows ups and into their teenage years - they begin to act and think in certain ways – these patterns of acting and thinking are what we call personality.

These patterns of acting and thinking can change – and we will discuss what may make someone change their personality later in the lecture.

Character - is a person’s reliable pattern of making ethical choices – so if someone has no reliable pattern we can say that they have no character – if the person has a faulty or a pattern that doesn’t work well – we could say that they are of bad character – if a good or well working pattern of good character.

So it is possible that someone might have developed a good personality – outgoing, relaxed, charming – and yet may not have developed a reliable pattern of ethical choices – in other words, chararacter.

Character – like personality – can change.

If there are ethical issues to do with the formation of the self baby – they are seen as the responsibility of the parents or teachers and not of the baby.

We think that babies and very young people are not able to make decisions about their development – or formation – of self.

This all a description of the formation of self – the next question we need to ask is: Is the formation of self ever finished?

The answer to this question I would say is ‘no’.

Let’s look at this in more detail and lets see how this formation of self relates to certain Asian philosophies – such as Confucianism and Buddhism – and how they form their ethics.

But first we need to understand this term:

(quote 2)
Second nature
A habit or mode of behavior so long practiced that it seems innate, as in Driving in heavy traffic is second nature to Chris. It alludes to the fact that very frequently repeating something makes it seem completely natural or inborn.
So that a person might have a developed a personality based advice and expectations that they get from parents and teachers plus some of their own ideas of what they should and shouldn’t do.
But sometimes this development is not so smooth – there might be a very developed personality – but a not so developed character – which become developed by a reflective examination usually of how the world actually is – and this is followed by a change in the direction is which one wants to develop their character.
This change of direction is the development of second nature – repeatedly making choices and taking actions so often that they seem as if you were born with that ‘nature’ – habitually.
(quote 3)
This phase of reflective examination in the development (or formation) of self that leads to a second nature is central to most classical Asian philosophy.
Upanishads
Bhagavad-Gita
Most Early Buddhist Texts
Analects of Confucius
A Western philosopher for who second nature is central is Aristotle.
While many Asian philosophies and ethical theories share this concern with Aristotle with the development of a second nature – what the second nature should be and how to get there is very different for each of them.
One thing is the same: all of them think that our ordinary human nature (what we might call our first nature) – the one that we begin with as babies and which develops as we get older – of desires and pleasure seeking – should be replaced with a second nature.
Some classical Hindu philosophy and in early Buddhist philosophy to reject this first nature quite strongly (all of it has to go) while in Aristotle and Confucius – there is not such a strong rejection of first nature – though both Aristotle and Confucius think that we can improve our natures.
For Aristotle – the foundation of goodness is good habits – but to develop these good habits a person needs a reflective phase – an insight phase - where they understand which habits are good.
(quote 4)
The ‘formation of self’ and the acquiring of a ‘second nature’ are very important in the ethical systems found in Asian philosophies - and in Aristotle.
What should be our second nature?
How do we work towards it?
What benefit does it have for our lives?
These questions are not entirely absent from Western philosophy – but they do not get the same strong focus as in Asian philosophy.
If we can change our character – how do these changes take place? It is interesting to note that there is quite a lot of agreement between psychologists and philosophers – both East and West – that acts of will (to want to be a different person) DO NOT play the biggest part in change – what is more important to a person who want to change their character is situation
In other words, the places and routines that a person puts themselves in.
So- according to this theory - some of the most important decisions that a person makes (in the formation of character) are where to go to university, who to marry, what sort of job to do, etc. – and NOT there efforts to try and change themselves.
Each of the decisions of where we PLACE/PUT ourselves leads us to form a life that helps to from character and personality.

David Hume (1711-1776) – the Enlightenment philosopher says in his essay “The Sceptic” – that the way to change yourself is to change you routines and pursuits – and then you will find that you will experience a gradual – not immediate – change in yourself.
This new pattern of living causes changes in personality and character.
In many Asian philosophies the development of a good second nature leads to reliability, trustworthiness, and compassion (meta).
In the Hindu tradition this development of a good second nature can lead to an experience of Brahman – the One reality – an experience of absolute value.
A central idea in the Hindu and Buddhist tradition is that the development of a good second nature is precursor (comes before) an experience of the complete loss of self.
This experience of the complete loss of self (or perhaps, we could say an understanding that there was never any self there to begin with) is said to be in those traditions the end of suffering – or complete fulfillment – or complete happiness and freedom.
In the Daoist and Confucian philosophies (Aristotelian) the need for the development of a good second nature to lead to complete loss of self is emphasized – but they do believe that the development of a good second nature will lead to having a better experience of life – for yourself and others.
In Western ethics we seen: Act and Rule Consequences and Nonconsequentialism – Absolutism and Relativism – Free Will and Determinism,
(quote 5)
‘Asian’ Ethical Philosophy
The development of a Self (through the development of a good second nature) which leads to a life of value.
(quote 6)
Some reasons why the ‘Asian’ ethical model (or a model which takes seriously the connection between what people do and their developed selves) may be better than the ‘Western’ ethical model:
(1) The person’s character limits what a person can or cannot do.
(2) The situations that people get themselves into – where they have to make ethical decisions – are often based on the kind of people they are (the kind of self that they have developed)
(3) To have developed a good second nature is to have a life in which harmony is primary – and conflicts with others are lessened.
The idea of harmony (or sometimes translated as naturalness) is central to Confucius philosophy.
Confucius (551-479 BCE)
It is Confucius to whom many philosophers point to as providing a better account of formation of the self than any Western philosopher (including Aristotle).
(quote 7)
The best way to understand the development of the self is within the context of family, community, tradition, and culture.
It is said that Confucius offers a better, fuller account of this than any other philosopher.Next week we will begin to look at Confucius.

Ethics Lecture Four

Ethics – Lecture Four 9/11/05


‘Act’ consequentialism and nonconsequentialism – could both be called ‘relativistic’

‘Rule’ consequentialism and nonconcequentialism – could both be called ‘absolutistic’

(quote 1)

Ethical Relativism –

Ethical rules depend on social acceptance.

Absolutism or Ethical Absolutism –

The idea that there is only one correct answer to every ethical problem.


Eskimos – let there old people starve.

Spartans of ancient Greece and the Papua New Guineans believe that stealing is right.

Some tribes in Africa throw sick babies to hippopotamus.

Some cultures say homosexuality is okay – some not.

Some cultures allow men to have many wives – some not.

Ruth Benedict (anthropologist) describes a tribe in Melanesia that says that kindness and generosity are wrong – bad.

There are some societies that believe that it is right – good – to kill your parents when they get too old.

As the world gets smaller and smaller – it gets harder and harder to believe that there are ethical rules that could apply to every culture – everywhere in the world.

(quote 2)

Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs. – John Ladd, Ethical Relativism

If we analyze this passage, we can make the following argument:

1. What is considered right and wrong is different from society to society, so that there are no absolute or universal ethical rules held by all societies.

2. Whether or not it right for a person to act in a particular way depends on the society that you are part of.

3. Therefore, there are no absolute ethical rules that apply to all people everywhere and at all times.

The Diversity Thesis

What is considered right or wrong is different from society to society – there are no ethical rules that all societies accepts. This says that ethical rules are different from each society – studying each society it would be hard to come up with one ‘true’ group of ethical rules.

The Dependency Thesis

All ethics get their power from society’s acceptance. What is right and wrong in each society depends on what is important to that society.
(ie. staying calm in Thailand) – ethics are an expression of that culture – not something outside that particular culture.

Some people say that the same principle might be expressed in different ways: Asians show respect by covering the head and uncovering the feet – where Occidentals do the opposite.

Not only do different societies have different ethical rules – but ethical rules can be different within each society – or change in that society over time.

Slavery in the United States.

(quote 3)

diversity thesis + dependency thesis together = ethical relativism


There are two kinds of ethical relativism:

(quote 4)

Subjective Ethical Relativism (Subjectivism)

Conventional Ethical Relativism (Conventionalism)

Subjective Ethical Relativism (Subjectivism)

This is the belief that ethics depends – or is relative – not on society but on the person – the individual – in other words, ethics in only what I feel is right.

But if what is right – or good – is relative to what I feel – then there can be trouble – incoherent - so if we want to hold the view of ethical relativism – people who say that it has to be based in society or culture.


Conventional Ethical Relativism (Conventionalism)

This is the belief that ethical rules are made true only by their acceptance by society or cultures.

Tolerance – (mai pen rai) allow something to be that someone dislikes or disagrees with or doesn’t understand.

Anthropologist Ruth Benedict says of Conventional Ethical Relativism that it helps us to be more tolerant and accepting of other cultures and societies:

(quote 5)

“We shall arrive at more realistic social faith, accepting as grounds of hope and as new bases for tolerance the coexisting and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from the raw materials.” – Ruth Benedict, Patterns Culture.

Another anthropologist, Melville Herskovits in his book, Cultural Relativism, says that ethical relativism brings about intercultural tolerance:

(quote 6)

1. If ethics is relative to its culture, then there is no independent basis for criticizing the morality of any other culture but one’s own.

2. If there is no independent way of criticizing any other culture, then we ought to be tolerant of the ethics of other cultures.

3. Ethics is relative to its culture or society.

3. Therefore, we should be tolerant of the ethics of other cultures.

This sounds good – but there are some problems – should we be tolerant of the ethics of societies like Hitler’s Germany – or killings and massacres of Pol Pot in Cambodia – what about ethics that we believe are wrong in our own societies – how could we change them – unless we can believe in a ethical rule that stands outside those societies – Australia and Aboriginal tribal law and domestic violence.

We need to ask this question: Are all societies so different in their ethical rules?

In his journal article, “Ethical Relativity,” for the Journal of Philosophy, write about what he says are ethical concerns which are similar in all societies and cultures:

(quote 7)

“Every culture has a concept of murder, distinguishing this from execution, killing in war, and other “justifiable homicides.” The notions of incest and other regulations upon sexual behavior, the prohibitions upon untruth under defined circumstances, of restitution and reciprocity, of mutual obligations between parents and children – these and many other ethical concepts are altogether universal.” – Clyde Kluckhohn, ‘Ethical Relativity,’ in Journal of Philosophy.


Absolutism or Ethical Absolutism

Can we make ethical rules that can apply to all societies and all cultures.

This is what Kant was trying to do – and we could say this is what ‘rule’ utilitarians are trying to do.

(quote 8)

“There is a great uniformity among the actions of men, in all nations and ages, and that human nature remains still the same, in its principles
and operations. The same events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions, mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all the actions and enterprises which have ever been observed among mankind … [History’s] chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations, and furnishing us with materials, from which we may form our observations, and become aquainted with the regular springs of human action and behavior.” – David Hume, Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary.


(quote 9)

Ethical Absolutism – Allows no exceptions

Ethical Objectivism – Allows some exceptions

One absolutist position is Natural Law:

This is the idea that every human being has reason and that reason lets them discover the essential eternal laws for societies happiness and harmony.


(quote 10)

The key ideas of “Natural Law” are:

1. Human beings have an essential rational nature established by God, who designed us to live and flourish in prescribed way (this idea is from Aristotle and the Stoics)

2. Even without knowledge of God, reason, as the essence of our nature, can discover the laws necessary for human flourishing (from Aristotle; developed in the Middle Ages by St. Thomas Aquinas)

3. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable, and one should use them to judge individual societies and their positive laws. The ethical rules of societies that are not in line with natural law are not true ethical rules. (from the Stoics)


Ethical Objectivism

Ethical rules that people should generally follow – but they may be overridden by other ethical rules in some situations.

Ethical Objectivism offers some ethical rules that is says can be followed in most cases.

(quote 11)

1. Do not kill innocent people.
2. Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering.
3. Do not steal or cheat.
4. Keep your promises.
5. Do not take away another person’s freedom.
6. Treat people equally.
7. Show gratitude.
8. Tell the truth.
9. Help other people.
10. Obey just laws.

Ethics Lecture Two

Ethics – Lecture Two 2/11/05

(quote 1)

Objectives

understand what the words consequentialist (teleological) and nonconsequentialist (deontological) ethics mean

understand what the terms psychological egoism and ethical egoism mean

know the three different kinds of ethical egoism

know the two main consequentialist theories: ethical egoism and utilitarianism

know the two different types of utilitarianism


It may be helpful if we first look at what the definition of consequence is: a result of something else.

The two major viewpoints in ethics are: consequentialist (concerned with consequences – results) and nonconsequentialist (not concerned with consequences).

(quote 2)

Consequentialist Ethics

ethical egoism
utilitarianism

The two main consequentialist theories are ethical egoism and utilitarianism.

Egoism: means a state of mind where one is always thinking about themselves and what is best for ourselves. In philosophy: our actions are caused by our need to please ourselves.

Both ethical egoism and utilitarianism agree that human beings should act in ways to bring about good results or consequences.

They are different in who they say should benefit from the good consequences – ethical egoism says “I” should – utilitarianism says “everybody” should.

Should I steal some money from my friend?

Ethical egoism: how does or could it affect me

Utilitarianism: how does or could it affect everyone – including me.

Let’s look at each of these – ethical egoism and utilitarianism - in more detail.

Ethical Egoism

It is not the same as selfishness – if I act selfishly all the time people not like me and treat me badly.

Ethical egoism can take three forms:

(quote 3)

Universal ethical egoism

Everyone should do what is good for themselves – it doesn’t matter if it is good for other people or not

Individual ethical egoism

Everyone should do what is good for ‘me’

Personal ethical egoism

I should do what is good for me – but I make no claims as to what other people should do

Forms 2 and 3 are hard to make into ethical theory because they are just about one person – ‘me’ – and cannot be applied to all others.

This is important because an ethical theory – to be an ethical theory – should be able to be applied to all people.

Universal ethical egoism is the version most used by ethical egoists – because it can be universally applied.

Universal ethical is put forward by philosophers, such as:

(quote 4)

Universal Ethical Egoism

Epicurus
Ayn Rand
Jesse Kalin
John Hospers

Ethical egoism can work – but is limited. It works best in isolation – where there less conflicts amongst people’s self-interests. When self-interests conflict ethical egoists often move to utilitarianism – in today world – where cultures and different peoples are closer than ever - and people’s self interests can often conflict.

Utilitarianism

The main philosophers of this ethical theory are:

(quote 5)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Utilitarianism gets its name from utility which means usefulness.

(quote 6)

Utilitarianism: everyone should do actions or follow the rule that will bring about the greatest good (or happiness) for everyone involved.

The reason for mentioning both acting and following rules is that there are two main kinds of utilitarianism.

(quote 7)

Utilitarianism

‘Act’ Utilitarianism

‘Rule’ Utilitarianism



Act Utilitarianism

In Act Utilitarianism you do not make rules because every situation is different and every person is different – so the idea is that each individual should look at the situation and the people involved and work out what would bring the greatest amount of good consequences (or, at least, the least amount of bad consequences) – not just for themselves – as in egoism – but for all the people involved.

The person acting must decide – if – for example – if telling the truth will bring the best result for everyone – or will lying bring more good consequences?

In act utilitarianism there are no absolute rules against lying, stealing, or killing – because every situation is different and every person is different.

So an action is considered ethical or unethical – moral or immoral – depending on how many good consequences it brings for everyone involved in a particular situation.




Criticisms

How does one decide what is good for another person?

It is very hard to assess every new situation – beginning again. There are some situations that seem similar and we should be able to make universal rules – like not killing.


‘Rule’ Utilitarianism

This says NOT that everyone should ACT to bring about the greatest good, but that people should follow the rule which brings about the greatest good for everyone involved.

This overcomes the problem in ‘act’ utilitarianism of all starting again with every new situation.

So rather trying to decide in every situation whether I should kill or not – ‘rule’ utilitarians make a rule, say: “You should not kill except in self-defence.

‘Rule’ Utilitarians believe that human beings are similar enough to set up some ethical rules that can apply to everyone.

However ‘rule’ utilitarianism shares one of the same problems with ‘act’ utilitarianism in that it is difficult to decide what it is the greatest good for all involved.

The arguments against ‘rule’ utilitarianism is that it is even harder to find a rule that applies in all situations and with all people – instead of deciding on each particular situation and group of people.

It is very difficult to come up with a rule which covers all situations.

Also the term “the greatest good for the greatest number” – sometimes this might mean really good things for the majority and really bad things for the minority.

Would it be okay then to kill say 100 children if it was going to save the lives of 10,000 children?

ie. shooting down the planes that crashed into the WTC.

The problem with utilitarianism is that it can be like mathematics applied to humans – and human ethics.

Kant believed that no human being should be used as an end.

Utilitarianism can be seen as an improvement over egoism as it thinks more about other people’s happiness.

The problem with consequentialist forms of ethics - such as ethical egoism and utilitarianism – is that it is very hard to be decide if the consequences are going to be good or bad.

Take the assassination of a corrupt or bad leader.

In our next lecture we we look at:

(quote 8)

Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories of Ethics


These are theories of ethics where the consequences or results are not as important.
Nonconsequentialist theories of ethics decide on what is right and wrong without deciding what the consequences might be.

Ethics Lecture Nine

Ethics Lecture Nine 28/11/05

We have been talking about formation of self as central to ethics – we could say that at this point that it seems to be important that we take “formation of self” just as seriously the idea of the Western ethical idea of “rule-making” – time of decision.

In W. ethics this idea of formation of self has not received as much attention – if one does become interested in this area they are usually directed to David Hume or Aristotle – but, if we are to develop a more comprehensive ethical theory - it is time that we add Confucius to that list.

Confucius – and his followers – make a contribution in this area that cannot be ignored and should form part of any research into ethics that takes “formation of self” as it starting point.

Let’s continue our discussion of self – in preparation for a discussion of Daoism and ethics.

Many of you here – and for many people in the 20th century – East or West – the idea that one can change their self over the course of their lifetime is largely accepted – in other words, you are not stuck with the self that you have!

(quote 1)

Is there a ‘self’ underlying the everyday personality that is not created or changed, and that is the same during our whole lifetimes – and even beyond this lifetime?

substance/quality

You remain the same, even if you look different, your personality and character change, and most of your memories are gone.

According to some Indian philosophies – there is the jiva (personality) which changes – but deeper than this is that atman (unchangeable self) which can be contacted through certain meditations – this unchangeable self is the same as Brahman (ultimate reality) – this is the central claim of the Hindu text called the Upanishads.

This idea of a stable, unchanging, self has been challenged many times – by David Hume in Treatise of Human Nature – and by Hinayana Buddhist notion of anatman (literally no atman).

It seems that no matter what changes – you are you – this feeling of self-identity makes one strongly feel that there is something – perhaps, deeply hidden – that remains the same.

Chuang Tzu (also known as Zhuangzi) says:



(quote 2)

Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) says:

“It seems that there is something genuinely in command, and the only trouble is that we cannot find a sign of it” – Chuang Tzu, The Seven Inner Chapters and Other Writings from the book Chuang Tzu. pg. 51

Regardless – we all do seem to change overtime – during our lifetimes we change – and - if there is a deeper inner self, does it change?

If we turn to Buddhist philosophy – particularly, the Hinayana Buddhist classic The Questions of King Milinda - the idea of a chariot is used – the chariot is not the wheels, the spokes, etc – but all of these together we would call a chariot – in the same way we cannot point to any one thing as being the “self”- and yet, any “thing” is changeable.

In Western philosophy - a similar idea is expressed by Hume – that the self cannot be found – but the parts that make up the self can be changed.

These philosophical ideas of the self – Buddhist and Western – could be called a fluid self.

This idea of a fluid self (fluid – like water) presents two kinds of problems for ethics:

(quote 3)

This idea of a fluid self presents two kinds of problems for ethics:

(1) How can we be responsible for what was promised by our ‘former’ selves?

(2) How can we be responsible for what we may do in the future?

And also: How does this effect the idea of ‘character’ (a reliable pattern of ethical choices) that is central to some ethical theories?

The idea of being able to develop a character may just be wishful thinking – this worry is clear in Kierkegaard:

(quote 4)

“Can you think of anything more frightful than that it might end with your nature being resolved into a multiplicity, that you really might become many, become, like those unhappy demoniacs, a legion, and you thus would have lost the inmost and holiest thing of all in a man, the unifying power of personality?” – Kierkegaard, Either/Or.

But – there also might be a more positive side to this fluid self – perhaps the fluid self as well as be changeable – may have many levels:

(quote 5)

“…the thought is that there may be levels of the self, in most people’s lives not playing any obvious role in current experience and behavior, that could be sources of energy and creativity. Beneath discursive thought and the judgements of immediate experience there could be, as it were, an underlying chaos that is capable of producing major benefits.” – Joel J. Kupperman, Learning from Asian Philosophy. pg. 60-61.

Energy and creativity – as ethical answers – skillful means in Mahayana Buddhism.

The great work and philosopher who develops this idea is the Daoist philosopher, Chuang Tzu.

Daoism

It might help if we begin with a discussion of Daoism.

This is the other great school of philosophy that has filtered down into Thai culture and the Thai character.

The two main books of Daoism are: the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu – there are some strong differences between the two.

The Tao Te Ching has three main focuses: mystical, personal, political.


The dao or tao is translated as “the way” – Confucius talks about the Dao as well – but the sense in which he means it is: “the right path of life”.

Daoist have a different meaning – in that in there definition there is a strong connection made between human beings and nature – and that human beings should become sensitive to the structures and rhythms of nature – human beings are small and nature is large.

The Tao Te Ching is older than the Chuang Tzu – by about two hundred years.

The central idea in the Tao Te Ching is that to strive is does not work –

(quote 6)

The very thing that is stopping you from attaining your goals (including ethical ones) is the effort to get them.

The man or woman of ‘no-action’ leaves nothing undone.

Of something done by being quiet …
Accomplishment apart from work,
Instruction when no words are used.

- Tao Te Ching, Number 43.

Dropping out of ordinary society and living in harmony with nature is a strong theme in Daoism – the may involve the pretense that one is mad.

The Chuang Tzu is less political and makes a stronger connection between mysticism and nature – it has a strong metaphysical view – that in the West would be called anti-realism.

Also: it is important to understand the idea of metaphysical anti-realism.

(quote 7)

Metaphysical Anti-Realism – there is no absolute truth that we can know about reality; there is no absolutely true knowledge of reality. Instead, there are a many different points of view – some more useful than others.

Chuang Tzu: “I dreamed I was a butterfly – am I a man having a dream of being a butterfly – or am I a butterfly dreaming he is a man?”

What does metaphysical anti-realism mean for ethics?

One of the differences between Western ideas of anti-realism and that found in the Chuang Tzu (and the Daoist inspired anti-realism of Zen Buddhism) is that there is less of a concern with the metaphysics and more of a concern with the ethical implications of anti-realism.

The ethical implication of anti-realism is seen by (Chuang Tzu and Zen Buddhists) as openness and a lack of seriousness.

This can be trained. One way – that Rinzai Zen tradition attempts to do this is though Koan training – “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” – through this type of training one begins to see the limits of the mind and thus to develop a deeper intelligence.

The Chuang Tzu does not offer any training techniques – but is throughout the book demonstrating the ethical importance of anti-realism.

This openness and lack of seriousness leads to the important foundations of ethics for Daoism: (1) spontaneity and emotional freedom (from worry and anxiety) –
(2) which leads to focused and skillful behavior.

The Chuang Tzu tells many stories of people who have learnt to act spontaneously and with emotional freedom and what is possible for them ethically.
Confucius is portrayed in the Chuang Tzu as trying to get the point of the Dao but not quite getting it

Ethics Lecture Seven

Ethics – Lecture Seven 20/11/05

We began by looking at ethics in Western philosophy that are based on making rules. Last week we began to look at the differences between Western and Eastern ideas – and we saw that the main difference between both is the East focus on the constructing of self – a good character – or a second nature.

Today we will look at something is very close to the idea of creating a better ‘self’ or a second nature and that is ethics as a style of life – which is an idea that appears rarely in Western ethics – but is central to much Eastern ethical philosophy.

Ethics can also be concerned – not just with certain choices on certain occasions – but with what kind of style of life should be led.

There are very few philosophers in the Western tradition who worry about this – some though are:

(quote 1)

Nietzsche – ubermensch (superman)

Heidegger - ‘Authenticity’

Sartre – ‘Honesty’

Camus – ‘Lucidity’

Western philosophy thinks of ethics as a kind of choice – and what is at stake is good and evil, right and wrong.

Western ethics considers the choices of whether to kill or not, or whether to lie or not – these are ethical decisions – and these are what ethical philosophy is about.

How I spend my money – or how I speak to my friends, etc – these things are considered not to be important to ethics – ethics – in Western philosophy is about special moments of choice – the rest of life is ignored or thought not to be important to the subject of ethics.

There are some other Western philosophers for whom other things are considered ethical, such as:

(quote 2)

What is the meaning of life?

How can I be honest with myself?

How can I be a ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ person?

These philosophers would point to the man or woman who has done everything right – made all the right ethical decisions, etc. – and yet wakes up one morning – at say the age of fifty and thinks to themselves – what is the meaning of my life? These philosophers, such as Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, and others – would say that this man or woman has not found what the real philosophical questions are.

These philosophers suggest that good and meaningful style of life is just as important to us – as good ethical choice – in leading a happy and fulfilling life – which is what the aim of an ethical life is.

None of the philosophers that we have mentioned really agree on what that life-style should be – but one idea does seem to repeat itself and that is naturalness.

Natural – produced by nature and not by human beings.

My mother said: “just be your self.”

An important question in ethics, East or West, is: Are human being naturally good or bad?

As we saw last week: much Eastern ethical philosophy is based on the idea that we have to develop a second nature because our first nature is a sense is not good enough.

Today – I want to look at this idea of naturalness and how it relates to on of the most important ethical philosophers: Confucius ­- who thought a lot about what it meant – and for who ‘naturalness’ was central to his ethical philosophy.

Examining ‘naturalness’ in relation to Confucius should help us to understand three things:

(quote 3)

First: Confucius’s philosophy shows the ambiguity of the term ‘naturalness’.

Second: Confucius’s idea of the best kind of ‘naturalness’ shows us clearly what he means by li (propriety).

Third: A discussion of Confucius’s idea of ‘naturalness’ will lets us look at a larger question: “What is most valuable?”

Ambiguity – having more than one meaning.

Propriety – acting correctly ethical and socially.

In the Analects Confucius’s best student Yu explains two different kinds of naturalness:



(quote 4)

“In the usages of decorum it is naturalness that is of value. In the regulations of the ancient kings this was the admirable feature, both the small and great deriving therefrom. But there is naturalness that is not permissible; for to know to be natural and be beyond the restraints of decorum is also not permissible.”

Decorum – socially acceptable behavior.

Everyone has desires and impulses which if expressed would create trouble in society. But it may seem ‘natural’ to express such feelings – why block them or stop them? – yet this kind of ‘naturalness’ – as we can see in the quote is “not permissible” – there is the problem for society if everyone just expressed there feeling – but Confucius says it becomes a problem for the individual – because, he says, it stops them from becoming a “remarkable” or “superior” person.

(quote 5)

Three meanings of “naturalness”:

First: Naturalness as the express of feelings and desires as they happen.

Second: Naturalness as expression of “decorum” or acting in a socially acceptable way.

Third: Naturalness as people’s original tendencies, talents, and capacities.

This second meaning of ‘naturalness’ is the one that Confucius uses – it can be hard to understand how can behavior that is “acting in a socially acceptable way” is natural – remember our definition of natural – something not produced by human beings.

The third meaning of naturalness is hard for someone is hard to believe in for someone who believes in the mind being blank at birth – that we are born without tendencies and have to be taught them – however, for a Confucian philosopher – such as Mencius (probably the most important philosopher in the Chinese tradition) says that jen (goodness and compassion) is our natural state – as in the third meaning of ‘naturalness’.

Confucius holds a view that is in the middle – not a blank at birth – but a nature at birth that needs further training – further development.

(quote 6)

“By nature men nearly resemble each other; in practice they grow wide apart.”

“When nature exceeds training, you have the rustic. When training exceeds nature, you have the clerk.”

Rustic – rough and not refined or sophisticated.

Daoist Ideas of ‘Naturalness’

Another meaning of ‘naturalness’ that is different from the three meanings of ‘naturalness’ that we have talked about so far – comes from Daoism (Taoism).

The two best known philosophers from this philosophical tradition are Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

(quote 7)

The idea of ‘naturalness’ in Daoism has three parts:

spontaneity in behavior

simplicity in social life

harmony with the universe


Spontaneity – coming from an impulse from within, not caused by something from outside.

Daoist ethical philosophy is NOT naturalness constrained or limited by decorum (what is acceptable to society) (second meaning) – but it also did not mean to just express you feeling freely – they believe that certain common feeling like anxiety (worrying) should be eliminated rather than expressed (first meaning) – and it is not a return to original nature (third meaning) because everyone can be said to have a tendency toward anxiety (worrying).

It important to see here – that we have seen four different meaning to the word natural – so that it is easy to see that the word “natural” has many meanings – and the ethical idea that “the important thing is to be natural” is not as clear as it seems.

(quote 6 - repeat)

“By nature men nearly resemble each other; in practice they grow wide apart.”

“When nature exceeds training, you have the rustic. When training exceeds nature, you have the clerk.”


If we look at the artist we might be able to understand what Confucius is saying here – if great musician, writer, actor, or painter – many of them were born with a ‘natural’ talent for music, writing, acting, or painting – but had to put in many hours of practice and training to produce their art works and to make them seem ‘natural’ – or easy.

At first what seems difficult and goes against their natural abilities becomes their own “voice” or their own “style” – their music, writing, acting, or painting looks and seems ‘natural’.

For Confucius the ethical was creating a advanced style of life by means of training and effort – to understand how Confucius links this higher style of life we need to understand what Confucius means by li.

Li

(quote 8)

Li involves not only a knowledge of traditional practices of society but also the ability to change them as circumstances and common sense might require.

This creates a problem – if li is changeable – how do we know when to change it?

For this we need to rely on jen – an open heart and compassion – and the naturalness of jen can only be expressed though the right training – this helps one to make the right choices.

This starts to sound like Act Nonconsequentialism – except for the training.

So Confucious could say at 70 years old:

(quote 9)

“At seventy I could follow the desires of my heart without transgressing the right”
In other word, the one who truly has li will naturally make the right choice.

Ethics Lecture Five

Ethics – Lecture Five 14/11/05

(quote 1)

know the following terms:

freedom
determinism
universal causation
fatalism
predestination
indeterminism

understand the difference between:

hard and soft determinism
fatalism
indeterminism

We have seen the importance of absolutism and relativism to ethics – now there is another area that is just as important – and that is this questions: Are human beings free to choose?

Explain: Determinism and Freedom

Can we make choices or are powerful forces outside of our control determining our choices so that we only seem to be making free choices.

The question as to whether human beings are free to choose is not really an ethical question – it is a question for metaphysics – but has profound implications for ethics.

determinism – means that everything has a cause – there is nothing that is uncaused – and if that it the case then it must be the same with humans.

non causi sui – nothing is self caused.

Latest neurological science has shown that we have a thought before we are aware of it.

If this is true how we can we hold people responsible for anything they do wrong?

Types and Theories of Determinism

The argument for determinism goes back to the ancient Greeks and before – and with the latest scientific research of the 20th century have become even more compelling.

(quote 2)

Two kinds of ‘determinism’:

Religious Determinism (Predestination)

Scientific Determinism

Religious Determinism

Religious Determinism is based on the idea of God or Allah being:

(quote 3)

‘God’ or ‘Allah’ is:

Omniscience (being all-knowing)

Omnipotent (being all-powerful)

If God or Allah says that I will live a good life and go to heaven – that will happen – if God or Allah says that I will live a bad life and go to hell – that will happen.

Everything is determined by God or Allah.

This theory is not generally held by the three major religions – though some philosophers in each of the religions has held the view – the most famous being John Calvin (1509-1564).

Problems: how do we prove a supernatural being? – and if He or She does exist – how do we know that they are all powerful?

(1) If God created everything in the world and knows about everything – then He or She must have created evil – this creates real problems for some theologians.

(2) If God determines everything this creates problems for the Christian notions of salvation.

This theory of determinism is held by all three of the major theistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam – but usually in a weak form – God has is all knowing and all powerful but has granted humans “free-will”.

Scientific Determinism

(quote 4)

Scientific Determinism

Physical Determinism

Biological and Genetic Determinism

Historical or Cultural Determinism

Economic Determinism or Social Determinism

Psychological Determinism (Freudianism and Behaviourism)


Because at the very heart of science is it’s ability to predict – it must accept universal causation – nothing is without a cause – this means – for the scientist there can be no freedom in the universe at all!

The strongest arguments for determinism have come in the 20th century –from the natural and physical sciences – particularly as they have affected modern psychology.

Physical Determinism

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) – believed strongly in physical determinism – according to Newton everything in nature – everything physical in nature – are governed by natural law – (i.e. law of gravity) – and therefore there in no such thing as freedom – human beings are physical in nature – and so all their actions are caused by something outside of them – freedom is simply an illusion.

Critics of Newton say that human beings are not merely physical – but also mental and spiritual beings.

Werner Heisenberg’s quantum theory.

Biological and Genetic Determinism

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) The survival of the fittest.

Darwin says that the process of natural selection has nothing to do with freedom.

A more recent and sophisticated version of the theory is genetic makeup.

None of us has any say over who our parents are – we get our genes from our parents – these genes determine our skin colour, how smart we are, our sex, our eye colour – and now scientists say – also the kinds of diseases we will get later in life – so how can we say that we are free?

The problem with biological and genetic determinism is the same as scientific determinism in that it reduces human beings just to their physical and biological makeup – and does not allow for the fact the humans might also have a mental or spiritual side.

Historical or Cultural Determinism

Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) developed a deterministic theory that was based on history.

Hegel thought that each stage of history were manifestations of an “absolute mind” or “absolute Geist” which is trying to realize itself in a state of perfection.

The basic nature of reality – of the world – is mental – and the physical is just a stage in absolute mind’s growth to realize itself.

All the actions of people are determined by their cultures – all previous cultures – and history events.

Problems: how do we prove that such a absolute mind exists? People are affected by their culture and by history – but are they absolutely determined by these things?

Economic or Social Determinism

Karl Marx (1818-1883) - Marxism follows on from Hegel – but instead our actions and characteristics are determined by economic forces not historical forces.

Marx’s theory was called dialectical materialism. thesis-antitheis-synthesis

slave-feudal-capitalist (proletariat and bourgeoisie) -socialist – classless society.

Marx believed that people cannot control which class (proletariat or bourgeoisie) they are born in – and the class that you are born in determines all your actions – everything that you say and do.

Psychological Determinism

Some of the strongest theories for determinism in the 20th century have come from the science of psychology

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) - the founder of psychoanalysis – in Freud’s theory all our actions are determined by the unconscious – that part of our mind’s where we keep suppress wants and desires – which expressed in our actions in other ways.

Freud would say that all human beings are determined by inner drives and unconscious motivations to act the way they do.

B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) – Skinner based his work on that of Ivan P. Pavlov (1849-1936).

Explain: Pavlov’s dog.

Skinner thought that all our actions were conditioned in the very same way – and that any talk of God, soul, psyche, self, and even mind – were just old outdated concepts based on a lack of scientific knowledge.

He said that freedom is an illusion – a dream.


Let’s look at what determinism means for ethics and ethical theory.


(quote 5)

Fatalism

‘Hard’ Determinism

‘Soft’ Determinism

Indeterminism


Fatalism

Fatalism is the idea that everything is absolutely determined and cannot be changed in any way by human beings.

In wartime – people say if I am going to die – I am going to die – and there is not much that I can do about it.

Hard Determinism

Hard Determinism say that if everything is caused then there can be no such thing as freedom or free will – but they are saying something different than Fatalists – they do believe that human beings CAN change events – but that the way in which humans do change things is CAUSED by things that are not in human control.

Other causes determine how I will change things.

The Hard Determinist is saying that everything has a cause – including thoughts, feelings, choices, decisions, actions.

The Hard Determinist says that if you go back far enough you will find the cause of every action - even the ones that you thought that you chose freely – genes, environment, parents, etc.




(quote 6)

“We can act in accordance with our choices or decisions,” he will say, “and we can choose in accordance with our desires. But we are not free to desire. We can choose as we please, but we can’t please as we please. If my biological or psychological nature is such that at a certain moment I desire A, I shall choose A, and if it such that I desire B, I shall choose B. I am free to choose either A or B, but I am not free to desire either A or B. Moreover, my desires are not themselves the outcomes of choices, for I cannot choose to have them or not to have them.” – John Hospers, Human Conduct, An Introduction to the Problems of Ethics.


Soft Determinism

Soft Determinism say that everything is caused – but that human beings can be one of the causes in the world – human beings can be causes in the world by using their minds and wills – but it is still a limited freedom – because we cannot choose certain things – live without air – or make people disappear by clicking my fingers.

Hard Determinism say that humans are causes to – but that those causes are caused by something else – Soft Determinists say that humans can originate causes.

Indeterminist

Think that there is chance in the world.

William James (1842-1910) - most famous holder of this view.

The evidence seems to overwhelming point in the direction of causation – or determinism – Can we even imagine what an uncaused event would look like?

Ethics Lecture Three

Ethics – Lecture Three 7/11/05

(quote 1)


Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories of Ethics


Know the difference between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist ethics

Know the difference between ‘act’ and ‘rule’ consequentialist and ‘act’ and ‘rule’ nonconsequentialist ethics

Understand and analyze nonconsequentialism and its main examples: Divine Command Theory and Kant’s Duty Ethics

Understand the ethical terms and concepts: universalizability, Catagorical Imperative, reversibility, human beings as ends rather than means, and prima facie duties.

Noncon - based on something other than the consequences of a person’s actions.

Consequentialist – egoist worried about the effect on them – utilitarians concerned with the consequences for all involved.

The most important thing to remember is that noncons believe that consequences do not and should not enter into theories of ethics.

Actions are judged only on whether they are ‘right’ actions – regardless of the consequences.

(quote 2)

Divine Command theory

Believing that there is a God, or gods, and that God has set up ethical and moral commands; then an action is right if, and only if , the commands are obeyed – regardless of the consequences.

Divine Command Theorist would say that someone must follow the commands of God – whether by voices or by signs or other means – and the consequences do not matter – including the deaths of many, people, etc..

Abraham’s sacrifice of his son.

DCT – is a clear example of a nonconsequentialist theory – but it is not the only one – and they don’t need to include God.


(quote 3)

‘Act’ Nonconsequentialist Ethics

‘Rule’ Nonconsequentialist Ethics

Just as in ‘act’ consequentialism – ‘act’ nonconsequentialists believe that no overall rules can be made for every situation – that each ethical situation must be approach differently – and must decide what is the best action to take in that particular situation.

What is interesting in this theory is the way in which ‘act’ nonconsequentialists decide on the best action in the situation.

It is said that that decisions made by ‘act’ nonconsequentialist are intuitionistic – or based on intuition.

(quote 4)

Intuition – understanding things (ie. a situation, or somebody’s feelings) immediately without the need for reasoning (thinking) or study

Like sensing that someone is behind you in a room.

(Blink – the book)

‘Act’ Noncon – are not concerned with consequences – they must do what they feel is right in this particular situation without thinking about rules or consequences.

One of the main things that ‘act’ noncons stress in that ethics is not based in reason – in the same way as science – ethics is about people’s feelings.

In fact, ‘act’ nonconsequentialists say that ethical statements really only do two things:

(quote 5)

‘Act’ Nonconsequentialists claim that ethical statements only do two things:

(1) express people’s feelings and attitudes

(2) create or make other people feel certain emotions and attitudes

(quote 6)

Right and Reason - Austin Fagothey

List reasons for and against using ‘intuition’ as a basis of ethics:

For

(1) Any mentally healthy person seems to have a sense of right or wrong

(2) Human beings had ethical ideas and convictions before philosophy created ethics as an area of study.

(3) Our ethical philosophy and theories are often used to confirm our ethical ‘intuitions’.

(4) Our ethical reasoning can go wrong and then we have to fall back on our ethical ‘intuition’.

Against

(1) difficult to prove ‘intuition’

(2) no proof of inborn set of ethical rules

(3) ‘intuition’ cannot be objectively criticized because it is personal

(4) human beings who do not have ethical intuitions

Other criticisms of ‘act’ nonconsequentialism

1. How do we know what we feel will be ethical?
2. How do we know we have enough facts to make an ethical decision?
3. If I am acting only on my own feelings, how do I know that I am doing best for all the others involved in the situation?
4. Can we really rely on our momentary feelings to make ethical decisions?
5. How can I justify my actions, except to say “it seemed like the best thing at the time?”

“I felt like killing him”

‘Rule’ Nonsequentialist Ethical Theories

‘Rule’ Nonsequentialists believe that: there are or can be rules which are the only basis for ethics – and consequences do not matter.

It is following these rules which is ethical or right and good.

The main way in which ‘rule’ nonsequentialist ethical theories differ from each other how these rules are made or established.
One of the has already been mentioned: Divine Command Theory.

But this has some obvious problems: even if we could prove that there was a God – we would then have to prove that God is good, or ethically right – and if we could prove that we would then have to go and prove it was indeed God who set up the ethical system.

Another famous nonconsequentialist theory is called Duty Ethics.

It was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

Kant said that it was possible to come up with ethical rules by reason alone – not from God, or even from empirical evidence (ie. observing consequences or results).

Kant’s requirements for an ethical rule:

1. Must logical
2. Must be able to be universalized.

Every should steal.

If we could establish ethical rules that were logical and able to universalized – then these rules should be followed no matter the consequences.

Inclined – want to behave in certain ways or do certain things – stay in bed, hit someone, give money to the poor, etc.

Duty ­– having decided on a ethical rule – through reason and asking is it logical? can it be universalized? – you would follow that rule no matter what your inclinations.

We have some inclinations (wants) that are ethical (good and right) and some inclinations that are not ethical (not good or right) – Kant said that we should rely on reason and our will and act out of a sense of duty.

Kant went so far as to say if the motive behind the act is inclination rather than duty – that it is not ethical.

A person who is good and kind because they want to be is not, according to Kant, ethical.

The main idea for Kant’s ethical system is the Categorical Imperative.

Imperative – a command – telling someone to do something.







(quote 7)

Categorical Imperative

An act is unethical if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule which all human beings can follow.

This means that every time that people are going to make a ethical decision that need to ask themselves two questions:

(quote 8)

1. What is the rule I am using for this ethical action?

2. Can it be made into a rule that all human beings can follow?

Example: A lazy person says, “Why should I work hard in order to live; why don’t I just steal from everyone else?”

The rule: I shall never work, but steal want I want from other human beings.

If you use the categorical imperative, it would come out like this:

No human being should ever work, all human beings should steal what they need from each other.

But if no one worked there would be nothing to steal.

Another important principle in Kant’s ethical system is:

(quote 9)

Practical Imperative

No human being should be used as a means for someone else’s end – a human being is always a unique end in himself or herself

Some of the ethical rules that Kant created, based on his ethical system, were:

Never kill.
Never steal.
Never break promises.

Suppose that by not breaking a promise someone might get killed?

The problem with Kantian ethics is they don’t tell us what to do when two rules contradict each other.

Another problem: Never help anyone in need.

To overcome this kind of problem Kant introduced another ethical principle:

(quote 10)

Reversibility

If the action were reversed – would the person want it done to him or her?

Golden Rule

The criticism of ‘reversibility’ is that it is consequentialist – that what Kant is saying is that: don’t do make this a rule because the consequences (results) might be bad for you – ie. no one will help you when you need it.

The problems with nonconsequentialist theories in general:

1. Why should we follow rules if the consequences are bad?

2. How can we resolve conflicts between rules?
3. Can there be a rule with no exceptions – human beings are very different and complex.

Ethics Lecture One

Ethics – Lecture One 31/10/05


(quote one)

Objectives

understand words to do with ethics and morality

understand the different ways we can study ethics

understand the different types of ethics

why should we be ethical?

Key Terms:

Moral and ethics mean the same thing.

Ethics comes from the Greek ethos meaning character.

If we say that someone is moral or ethical – we usually mean that they are a good person.

We might refer to some actions as either:

(quote two)

moral

ethical

immoral

unethical

or even:

amoral

nonmoral


All of these words mean: right or wrong – but how do we know what is right and what is wrong – the study of ethics helps us to decide what is right and what is wrong.

The word amoral means having no sense of right or wrong – like the serial killer or murderer you see in the movies or a very evil person – or maybe someone who has a problem with their brain – or a baby.


The word nonmoral means those things not involved in right or wrong – like mathematics or astronomy; the study of the stars - or a car or gun – the person who uses the gun might be ethic or unethical – right or wrong – but the gun itself is neutral – not right or wrong.

An immoral person does something wrong and knows he or she is doing something wrong – while an amoral person might do something wrong but they are not aware that it is wrong.

Different ways to study ethics

The three main ways in which we can study ethics are:

(quote three)

scientific or descriptive

observe how human beings act
describe what is observed
draw conclusion

normative

should
ought to

human beings should always act to help myself (egoism)
human beings should always act to help others (altruism)
human beings should always act to help myself and others (utilitarianism)

these are prescriptions not descriptions

metaethics or analytic ethics

not prescriptive or descriptive but analytic
analyze: language, logic, and reasoning

The different types of ethics

(quote four)

Religious Ethics

Environmental Ethics

Individual Ethics

Social Ethics


Religious Ethics

Ethics that deal with a human being in relation to a supernatural being or beings.

It is possible to act unethically with God while acting ethically with people.

Environmental Ethics

Ethics that deal with the human being in relation to nature.

Native Americans – Aboriginals - and others have had this ethics.

It would be possible to all by yourself on an island and still act unethically.

Individual Ethics

Ethics that someone believes themselves – whether or not society or others believe it – ie. vegetarianism.

Social Ethics

Ethics that deal with human beings relations to other human beings

This is the area of ethics that is most often dealt with in ethical theory.

Why should we be ethical?

Reasons that have been given through history for being ethical, or doing what is right:



(quote five)

Religious

Self-Interest

Tradition and Law

Religious

I will be punished by God or by a lower birth if I do right action.

Self-Interest

Doing what is good is good for me. It is good for me to live in a good world.

Tradition and Law

Traditions and laws have developed over a long time as a way to live together so we should follow them.

All of these have problems – as we will see. Some philosophers say that the best basis for being ethical – for doing the right thing is when we see that by doing the right thing – doing the right action – we can have the greatest amount of friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace, and creativity in our lives.