IB Philosophy:
Theories &
Problems of Ethics
Key Information
Paper 1 of your
philosophy exams will be 2 ½ hours long and you will be required to answer
three questions, one of which will be on Ethics. This means that your Ethics
essay is meant to take about 50 minutes to write. This essay should be around
800 words.
Ethics is the study of morality. It is difficult to define morality
precisely, but generally it involves a code of behaviour to govern actions,
often forbidding certain actions or encouraging others. Ethicists argue over
what these moral rules should be and in order to make their case they will turn
to principles and justifications to try to prove or persuade others that their
moral ideas are right.
During this course we will study several moral theories including
Christian Ethics, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Buddhist Ethics, Egoism, and
Virtue Ethics. We will also look at specific moral debates such as the debates
over euthanasia, abortion, the distribution of wealth, and treatment of animals
and the environment. Finally, we will cover topics about the very nature of
morality itself, such as questions of where morality comes from in the first
place, and whether there can be a universal code of morality or ethics is just
cultural.
Whilst studying Ethics it is important to be calm and open-minded. Other
people may say things you do not agree with and this can lead to heated and
angry debates, but in ethics classes you will be expected to listen carefully
to other views and to engage with them on an analytical and evidence based
level rather than on an emotive level. It is important that you try to
appreciate and understand the different sides of the issues we will
investigate.
In studying Ethics it is very important to make links to the IB’s Theory
of Knowledge course. You will be expected to mention things like reason,
emotion, intuition, language, and sense perception in your essays.
Whilst studying the Ethics course you will be regularly required to write
essays. These will be done under exam conditions in class. Homework will
normally consist of reading texts and taking notes on them, or revising for in
class exams. Some in class exams will be peer assessed to allow you to learn
new techniques and points of view from other pupils, increase your awareness of
the markscheme, and allow for instant feedback.
If you need to contact me, my email address is: dbarrett@dartfordgrammarschool.org.uk
The following are useful websites:
Sevenoaks School Philosophy: http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ethics-content.html
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/
Moral Dilemmas
Discussing moral dilemmas helps you to identify your moral intuitions and the way that you think about morality. These work by forcing you to make a difficult choice and getting you to think about how you personally would justify your choice.
Moral Dilemma 1:
Stephen Hawking (a genius who is disabled),
Wayne Rooney (an
Bruce Forsythe (a very old TV presenter),
Ben Perks (a binman).
1) Who would you save, and why?
2) Who would you leave behind, and why?
3) Would you sacrifice yourself for other
people? Why? Why not?
4) Is it true to say that some people are worth
more than others? Explain your opinion.
Moral Dilemma 2:
“Kill one of the men for me, and I will let the other
nineteen go, but if you refuse my generous mercy I will execute all twenty of
them.”
There’s no way out of this.
If you walk off and leave he will kill all 20. If you try to attack him you will be killed
too. The people of the village are
begging you to do it, but you really don’t want to kill someone.
1) What are you going to do? Why have you chosen this option?
2) Is it ever right to perform an evil act so
that another, worse, evil act can be avoided?
3) “If you walked away and refused to
personally do something that was wrong, that would be
selfish.” Do you agree or disagree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
Unfortunately the crowd won’t listen to reason and they are
going to riot if you don’t let them lynch him.
If they riot lots of people will be hurt, or even killed, shops will be
burnt down, and so on. It wouldn’t be
the first time either, they’ve done it before.
It is your job to stand up for justice and truth, but you also need to keep the peace and prevent
violence.
1) Would you let the crowd have him to stop the
riot, or would you stand up for him?
Why?
2) Is being moral just a case of avoiding doing
things that are wrong, or is more involved than
that?
Explain your answer.
Moral Dilemma 4:
The rules of war say that civilians should not be harmed,
the last thing you would want to do is bomb their houses (for example). But the problem is that the weapons factories
are full of civilians who are making weapons.
And these weapons are being made 24/7 so there’s no way to destroy the
factories without killing civilians. Should you bomb the factory anyway, even though lots of
people will die?
1) Would you bomb the factory or not? Why?
2) Would you say that the civilians are innocent
and should not be killed, or do you think they are not innocent and deserve to
be killed just like soldiers? Explain
your answer.
Ethics Discussion Sources
These sources were originally written by Brian King, but I have taken the liberty of modifying them.
Ethics Source 1: Chimpanzees
“During one winter at the Arnhem zoo,
after cleaning the hall and before releasing the chimps, the keepers hosed out
all rubber tyres in the enclosure and hung them one by one on a horizontal log
extending from the climbing frame… Krom was interested in a tyre in which water
had stayed behind. Unfortunately, this particular tyre was at the end of the
row, with six of more heavy tyres hanging in front of it. Krom pulled and
pulled at the one she wanted but could not remove it from the log… Krom worked
in vain on this problem for over ten minutes, ignored by everyone, except
Jakie, a seven year old Krom had taken care of as a juvenile. Immediately after
Krom gave up and walked away, Jakie approached the scene. Without hesitation he
pushed the tyres one by one off the log, beginning with the front one, followed
by the second in the row, and so on, as any sensible chimp would. When he
reached the last tyre, he carefully removed it so that no water was lost,
carrying it straight to his aunt, placing it upright in front of her. Krom
accepted his present… and was already scooping up water with her hand when
Jakie left.”
From “Primates and Philosophers” by
Frans de Waal, Princeton 2006, p. 31- 33
Evolutionary Biologists believe that
morality, like every other factor of human life, is a product of evolution.
Those who study animal behaviour say that they have found strong evidence of
morality in animals such as dogs, dolphins, elephants, and primates.
Primatology is particularly interesting as primates are our closest relations
and share vast amounts of our DNA. Frans de Waal says that whilst primates like
chimps do not have the fully developed senses of morality that humans have,
they do display instincts for sharing, sympathy, benevolence, fairness, and
community, all of which are pillars of moral behaviour. Chimpanzees are very
good at consoling each other when one is upset, and they have been known to put
their own lives at great risk to rescue other chimps, for instance, even though
chimpanzees cannot swim they have been known to jump into water
Questions To Think About and Discuss
1) Do you think this
shows that chimpanzees can behave morally?
2) Is moral behaviour
just a matter of empathy and feeling concern for others? Is it something more
than this such as rational principles like justice?
3) Chimpanzees are often
gentle and kind to one another, but they can also fight and perform acts of
rape and murder. Do you think that this means they are not really moral
creatures after all?
4) Does the presence of
sympathy in chimpanzees somehow prove that morality is in some way part of our
nature?
5) Would you agree with
the idea that morality has evolved, just like other more physical aspects of
animals?
6) In your experience,
what evidence is there to say that other animals (e.g. dogs) have a sense of
morality?
7) If it is indeed true that chimpanzees are
capable of sympathy and moral behaviour, do you think this indicates that they
should be protected or given rights, e.g. the right not to be killed or
experimented on by humans, the right to a habitat, etc.?
Ethics
Source 2: Honour Killings
“About thirty
men and women gathered at the house that evening. After being greeted by Mr.
Asasah, they formed a circle around Nura, his thirty two year old daughter, who
stood frightened, her swollen belly showing under her dress. She was five
months pregnant. She was single. Holding a rope in one hand and an axe in the
other, her father asked her to choose. She pointed to the rope. Asasah
proceeded to throw her on the floor, step on her head, and tie the rope around
her throat. He then began strangling his daughter while she, in turn, did
nothing to protest. The audience - so the Jerusalem paper reports - clapped
their hands, yelling, “Stronger, stronger, you hero, you have proven that you
are not despicable.” Following the macabre ceremony, Nura’s mother and sister,
who had witnessed the gruesome scene, served coffee and sat with the guests.”
From
“Moral Minds” by Marc Hauser, Harper Collins, 2007, p. 143-4
Universalism
A
Universalist believes that there is a single code of right and wrong that all
human beings should be following, no matter where they live or what culture
they belong to. A Universalist wishes for the same rules to be followed
everywhere, so if you are a Universalist and you agree with euthanasia then you
think it should be legal in every country, whereas if you are a Universalist
and are against euthanasia you are going to say that it should be banned in
every country. It shouldn’t be legal some places and illegal other places, as
what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on location or culture. Note that
Universalists are not saying everyone should wear the same clothes, listen to
the same music, eat the same foods and so on, they are only concerned with
moral issues.
One
reason to be a Universalist is religion; God has made the whole human race and
given mankind rules to live by, and so all of mankind should be following those
rules. If some people ignore or disobey those rules then they are doing the
wrong things. Another reason to believe in Universalism is to be a human rights
advocate. Those who believe in human rights typically argue that every human
being has value and dignity, and that they deserve respect. A human rights
advocate will say that no one should be tortured or enslaved no matter where
they live, and that countries which allow these things need to be challenged
and changed.
Cultural Relativism
It
is an obvious fact that people around the world often follow different moral
codes. Whereas a Universalist says they should not and there should only be one
moral code, a Cultural Relativist says that each culture is perfectly entitled
to follow their own moral system. A Cultural Relativist would argue that there
is no single right way to live and that each different moral system has equal
worth and value. On account of this view, one culture should not attempt to
foist its own moral system onto a foreign culture. If one society approves of
honour killings because it values chastity and duty, then so be it. Each
society has the right to make its own judgements of what is good and bad, and
outsiders should not criticize or interfere.
Questions To Think About and Discuss
1) Why do you think that the people in the story
believe that the actions of Nura’s father are good and moral? What moral
principles might they believe in?
2) What moral principles might a person use in order
to argue that the killing is wrong?
3) Do you think that societies that practice honour
killings are ‘entitled’ to their own moral codes?
4) Do you think there are any practices in our
society / culture which others would criticise? Why?
5) Do you think that some societies can have better
moral codes than others?
6) Do you think there are any shared moral values
across the world (transcultural values)?
Ethics Source 3: The Golden Rule
The Golden
Rule is an idea which seems to be transcultural in that it is found in various
cultures across the world. It is also found amongst the teachings of the
world’s largest religions:
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you
yourself would find hurtful.”
Confucianism: “Surely it is a maxim of loving
kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”
Taoism: “Regard your neighbour’s gain as
your own gain and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss.”
Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not to
your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.”
Christianity: “All things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and the
Prophets” and “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
Islam: “No one of you is a believer until
he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.”
Some versions of the Golden Rule are
negative in saying that you should not do bad things to other people: just as
you don’t want to be tortured, killed or raped, so too you should not do these
things to others. Some versions of the Golden Rule are negative in saying that
you should make sure to benefit other people and help to make their lives as
good as you want your own to be.
There is a sense of equality behind
the rule, it seems to imply that other people are just as important as
yourself, but remember that not everyone believes in equality. If you are a
sexist man then you might think you need to treat other men the way you want to
be treated, but you don’t have to treat women that way. If you are racist you
might think the rule only applies to how you treat people of your own race or
country or religion. Some would apply it to animals and so say that we should
not eat them or experiment on them, but most people would say it only applies
to fellow human beings.
Questions To Think About and Discuss
1) What differences do you notice in these formulations
of the Golden Rule?
2) Note that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic rules
refer to ‘men’ and ‘brothers.’ There is also reference to ‘neighbours.’ Who do
you think the Golden rule should apply to?
3) These formulations of the Golden Rule all come
from religious sources. Do you think there is a connection between religion and
morality? Are morals divine commands of some sort?
4) Does the fact that the same rule is coming from
places all across the world indicate that the rule is somehow written into
human nature?
5) If we followed the Golden Rule, how would this
affect laws and societies around the world? Would there be more equality? Might
we actually end up with Socialism?
6) Would it be fair to say that the Golden Rule can
act as a master rule from which all other moral rules could be derived?
Ethics Source 4: Human Nature
When
it comes to deciding where morality comes from some people argue that it comes
from human nature.
We are Naturally Bad
Thomas Hobbes took the view that humans are basically selfish, greedy and competitive
creatures and that we are inclined towards using violence and deception for our
own gain. Hobbes argues that moral rules come into being as a way of stopping
the mutually destructive competition that human nature causes. He also thinks
that our moral behavior is just a surface for covering up our natural
antisocial tendencies, we may seem like we are being kind when we give to
charity, but deep down the motivation is always selfish.
Hobbes
developed
the idea that man in his natural state was at war with his fellow men, struggling
to compete for scarce resources and willing to kill in order to survive and
also to gain property and power. The consequence of this war of every man
against every man was that no one was safe, eventually every person will die
young and poor and in misery, or as Hobbes put it, in the State of Nature mans’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
Hobbes argues that in order to
deal with this State of Nature man, being intelligent, decided to come together
under the rule of a leader who would inspire fear rather than respect, but whom
they would obey as the alternative would be even worse. In other words, we need
society and its laws and police and prisons in order to keep us in line,
otherwise we will act terribly towards each other and everyone will be
miserable, poor, or dead. The leader’s rules would be
the moral values that people would be obliged to obey; they would act morally out of fear of not doing
so.
Thomas Huxley developed this idea
by adapting Darwin’s theory of
evolution. He compared humanity with a gardener who has to keep down the weeds;
the “weeds” would be the natural competitive and selfish impulses we have
evolved through our struggle to survive (the phrase “survival of the fittest”
is Huxley’s phrase, not Darwin’s) and our
“humanity” is what we have developed culturally to combat and control our nasty
inner selves.
We are Naturally Good
Mencius, a later follower
of the Chinese philosopher Confucius,
wrote the following about 2,300 years ago:
“When I say that all men have a mind which cannot
bear to see the suffering of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even
nowadays, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will
without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel
so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child’s
parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours
and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by
such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration
is essential to man.”
Arguably there is much
goodness in human nature as we are creatures who can feel empathy and are
capable of loving others. Darwinism at first seems to suggest that we are
selfish, but in fact human beings survive best when they work together in
groups and modern evolutionary biologists believe that natural selection has
selected in favour of people who are kind and willing to help or share. This is
supported by neuroscience which has actually identified regions of the brain
and chemicals which make us act with empathy and consideration towards others;
those with malfunctions in these brain areas are inclined towards selfishness,
violence, and manipulation.
According to Jean-Jacques
Rousseau the selfish and ‘evil’ part of our nature is not actually natural
but instead it has been created by society with its emphasis on property,
wealth, and status. Society has turned us in to competitive and greedy
creatures when by nature we are actually kind. Man by nature is concerned with
his own welfare, but not at the cost of other people’s welfare. In our natural
state there is no property and wealth, people have simple needs for things like
food, water, and shelter, and so there is nothing to argue or fight over, we
would instead help each other and share.
Questions To Think About and Discuss
1) Which view do you think is a more reasonable one to take of man’s nature - good or bad?
2) How would you account for bad aspects of mankind’s behaviour if you think we are basically good?
3) How would you account for the creation of moral values if mankind is basically bad?
4) Do you think it is possible to say that morality is part of our nature?
No comments:
Post a Comment