Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address

1. Scope & Application (Mo)

1.1. What is ethics ?

1.1.1. The study of morals and morality Morality principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Descriptive morality Prescriptive morality

1.2. The different types of ethics

1.2.1. Descriptive ethics comparative ethics, based on empirical experiments, looking into people's beliefs and morality

1.2.2. Normative ethics constructing framework for guidance as how to make the right decision, starting with the assumption: there is right or wrong exploring standards and principles

1.2.3. Applied ethics

1.2.4. deals with the actual application of ethical principles to a particular situation Business Ethics the study of appropriate business policies and practices regarding potentially controversial subjects Environmental Ethics the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human contents. Medical Ethics a system of moral principles that apply values to the practice of clinical medicine and in scientific research.

1.2.5. Meta-ethics What does it mean to say something is right or wrong? What is the nature of the good? What is the nature and justification of ethical claims?

1.3. Purpose of ethics

1.3.1. To make our society work (beyond law), to avoid chaos.

1.3.2. produce theories explaining morality of the behaviour of an individual or a group / society / culture explaining the benefits of applied moral values of/to each society providing us with a framework of how to make ethical decisions

1.4. Applications of ethical theories

1.4.1. we are all responding to social conditioning ethcial egoism people apply some ethical decisions based on their own self-interest and own personal goals utilitarianism which is based on the notion that we ought to sacrifice our own interests to those of others. virtue ethics opposed to following rules of action Virtue theorists believe that moral judgements are emotional responses to the world

1.4.2. exploring the principles that prescribe certain kind of behaviour/conduct and moral values

2. Language & Concepts (Will)

2.1. Theories

2.1.1. Consequentialist Utilitarian Approach The Utilitarian approach talks about how people make ethical decisions and the approach they take when making ethical decisions. Egoistic Approach The Egoistic approach is very similar to the Utilitarian approach. The one difference being that the good is for one's own self interest. Common Good Approach The Common Good approach states that people will make decisions that will provide the greatest good for "the people".

2.1.2. Non-Consequentionalist Duty- Based Approach The Duty-Based Approach is all about having the proper intention in performing an ethical action. Rights Approach The Rights Approach states that those following the rights approach take the action that protects the ethical rights of those involved in the actions. Justice/Fairness Approach The Justice/Fairness Approach follows the rights approach however it states that this approach be followed whilst keeping in mind that all free men should be treated alike. Divine Command Approach The Divine Command Approach states that ethical standards are the creation of God's Will and as such, the ethical action taken should be what god commands.

2.1.3. Agent-Centred Virtue Approach The Virtue Approach argues that ethical actions should be consistent with ideal human virtues. Feminist Approach The Feminist Approach is similar to the Virtue approach but revised with a feminist view. This emphasises the importance of experiences of women and other marginalised groups to ethical decisions.

2.2. Language

2.2.1. Metaphors One of the problems with metaphors in ethics is that there can be multiple understandings of the same metaphor. This can cause confusion and problems within ethics. Build up of ethics as a whole gets harder to understand.

3. Methodology (Jerry)

3.1. Religious Ethics

3.1.1. How have religions shaped people's moral beliefs? Can/Should be the rules in Bible followed literally or should we rather follow the spirit of the moral code? Is something good because God says it is good or does God say that it is good because it is good?

3.1.2. Plato argued one should not derive ethics from religion.

3.2. Natural Ethics

3.2.1. Everything's derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature.

3.2.2. Teleology (good & bad) The right or wrong of an action is always determined by its tendency to produce consequences which are intrinsically good or bad.

3.2.3. Deontology (right & wrong) A kind of action would always be right (or wrong) in a particular circumstances, no matter what its consequences might be.

3.2.4. Double effect What should one do if there are unintended secondary effects? Do the secondary effect’s consequences outweigh the benefits of performing the act?

3.3. Immanuel Kant & Duty Ethics

3.3.1. Duty Requirements you must legally or ethically meet.

3.3.2. Right Natural Rights you have just by existing as a human being. Guaranteed Rights granted by a government, other organization or person.

3.3.3. Immanuel Kant An example of a deontological moral theory. The rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfil our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, these principles determines what our moral duties are.

3.4. Utilitarianism

3.4.1. Jeremy Bentham Evaluates actions based upon their consequences. More to do with the results and the "greater good". The overall outcomes of a moral decision is important.

3.5. Applied Ethics

3.5.1. Kant He would refuse the idea that one should please the shareholders and look at the overall good of all stakeholders. Workers could not be treated as ‘tools’ in order to achieve an outcome.

3.5.2. Utilitarian Each stakeholder’s happiness counts hence if there are more workers than shareholders, utilitarians would be on the side of the workers and phrase the law favouring the majority.

4. Historical Development (Ollie)

4.1. The historical development of ethics ties in closely with the other parts of this AOK.

4.1.1. Language and concepts Technical language: increasingly more technical language when it comes to the use of technology and incorporating of the research from NS in the ethical studies language used when moral values are communicated: from chat rooms to virtual reality (the use of sms acronyms, emoticons etc.) our PK shared via social media in written language: misinterpretation of the values shared (sarcasm, dark humor); How does this affect the development and hierarchy of our personal and communal moral values?; To what extent does this development affect our moral responsibilities and obligations?; => the need for a new moral conduct (in the chatrooms etc.)

4.1.2. Methodology data-collection: technology enables us to collect a greater amount of information and widen the sample as research can be done on a global scale data-handling: it is much easier and faster to handle the data obtained new methodology: the move from the traditional moral philosophy to experimental moral philosophy

4.2. Important Historical Figures: Kant Nietzsche Ladd Hume Aristotle Bentham

4.2.1. Religious Teachings Religious teachings have had a significant impact of the ethics of humanity. Even now the majority of earths population are religious so religious moral guidance are often the standard for ethical beliefs.

4.2.2. Aristotle Aristotle focused on personal ethics of the individual. He believed that virtue lay in the middle ground between two vices.

4.3. New problems that have arisen due to new technology.

4.3.1. stealing of personal identity, plagiarism

4.3.2. new methodologies in the Sciences (eg genomic research)

4.3.3. cyberbullying, cyber-attacks (knife -> automated gun -> etc.)

4.3.4. artificial intelligence (reasoning v intuition)

5. Personal Knowledge (Nat)

5.1. Friend's fascination with Nietzsche's notion of master / slave morality

5.1.1. Master (vertical) morality: ethics revolve around promotion of individual exceptionalism

5.1.2. Slave (horizontal) morality: ethics formed based on social justice and equality

5.1.3. Noble Christian notions (that I was raised by) of self-sacrifice and focusing on last, lost and the least dismissed - under this ethical interpretation - as weak Ethics as defined by faith

5.2. Interest in ethics as defined by the law, personal interest in law

5.2.1. Decisions on ethical consequences based on mens rea (intention) and actus rea (action) Based on Kantian definition of goodness as the will to be good, mens rea would be of preference in determining justice However, as is the case with police brutality cases, defining violence purely as 'accidents' or done "out of fear" unfairly negates responsibility Is anyone above the law?

5.3. Digital piracy

5.3.1. Gravity of crime often dismissed due to its being a "victimless crime" However, loss incurred by copies pirated instead of sold leaves victims (unemployment incurred throughout industry)

5.3.2. Presence of intellectual property law attempts to impose ethics onto non-physical artworks

5.3.3. Widespread ignorance of piracy as unethical rooted in convenience, accessibility Similar to increased presence of plagiarism in regards to the internet

5.4. College applications

5.4.1. Affirmative action: colleges factoring in representation into deciding who is / isn't admitted If two students are (hypothetically) equal in merit, generally accepted as ethical to prefer the one of an underrepresented ethnicity / gender For two students of uneven merit, generally accepted as unethical to prefer the academically inferior student on the basis of race / gender

5.5. Climate change

5.5.1. Disagreement as to who is accountable Government has capacity to restrict big businesses on a much larger scale than the individual If individual actions are comparatively inconsequential, can lead to fatalism Virtue-signalling to regulate own guilt rather than actual change Hypocrisy found in reconciling protest and personal consumerism Question of morality as individually focused or collectively focused, especially if consequences of climate change fall mostly on future generations Responsibility for future generations rooted in emotion / faith