Introductory Materials


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:
You are the captain of on an aeroplane and it is about to crash into some remote mountains, which will surely kill everyone on board.  There are six people on board and only four parachutes.  You have to choose who will get them, which means you are going to have to choose two people to stay behind and die.  The six people are:

You (the captain),
Ray Mears (a survival expert),
Stephen Hawking (a genius who is disabled),
Wayne Rooney (an England footballer),
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:
You are walking through the South American jungle and come to a small village.  A corrupt local military leader has 20 men lined up against a wall, and his men are about to execute them.  The 20 men have defied his orders and he wants to make an example of them.  When he sees you, a foreigner, he decides to be ‘merciful’ and offers you the following option:

“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.



Moral Dilemma 3:
You are the sheriff of a wild west town.  A visitor to the town has been accused of rape and murder and an angry mob is out to lynch him.  You are protecting him because you know for a fact that he isn’t guilty as he was with you at the time of the murder. 

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:
Your country is fighting a war against another country.  They are killing hundreds of your soldiers every day.  If you could destroy the factories where they produce their guns and ammunition then their war efforts would be greatly reduced and less of your men would die… it could turn the tide of the war!

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 manss 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 leaders 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 Darwins 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 Darwins) 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 childs 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 mans 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