From the Book;

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted
social practice, or science, what are they based on?

Ethics is not the same as feelings.
Feelings provide important
information for our ethical
choices.

Ethics is not religion.
Many people are not religious,
but ethics applies to everyone.

Ethics is not following the law.
A good system of law does incorporate
many ethical standards, but law can
deviate from what is ethical.

Ethics is not following culturally
accepted norms. Some cultures are
quite ethical, but others become
corrupt -or blind to certain
ethical concerns.

Ethics is not science. Social and natural
science can provide important data to
help us make better ethical choices.

----------------------------------------------------
Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard
----------------------------------------------------

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards
we are to follow:

1. On what do we base our ethical
standards?

2. How do those standards get applied
to specific situations we face?

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social
practice, or science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and
ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have
suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we
should use.

-------------------------------------------
Five Sources of Ethical Standards
-------------------------------------------

1. The Utilitarian Approach: the ethical action is the one that
provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another
way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm.

2. The Rights Approach: the ethical action is the one that best
protects and respects the moral rights of those affected.

3. The Fairness or Justice Approach: all equals should be treated
equally ...ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if
unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible.

4. The Common Good Approach: life in community is a good in itself and
our actions should contribute to that life ...the interlocking
relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that
respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are
requirements of such reasoning.

5. The Virtue Approach: ethical actions ought to be consistent with
certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our
humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to
act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf
of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion,
generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness,
self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

-------------------------------------------
Putting the Approaches Together
-------------------------------------------

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior
can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved,
however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of
these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of
human and civil rights.

We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even
agree on what is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer
the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each
approach gives us important information with which to determine what is
ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the
different approaches do lead to similar answers.

----------------------------------------------------
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
----------------------------------------------------

Recognize an Ethical Issue

1. Is there something wrong personally, interpersonally, or socially?
Could the conflict, the situation, or the decision be damaging to
people or to the community?

2. Does the issue go beyond legal or institutional concerns? What does
it do to people, who have dignity, rights, and hopes for a better life
together?

Get the Facts

3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are unknown?

4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome?
Do some have a greater stake because they have a special need or
because we have special obligations to them?

5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and
groups been consulted? If you showed your list of options to someone
you respect, what would that person say?

-------------------------------------------------
Evaluate Alternative Actions From
Various Ethical Perspectives
-------------------------------------------------

6. Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm?

Utilitarian Approach: The ethical action is the one that will produce
the greatest balance of benefits over harms.

7. Even if not everyone gets all they want, will everyone's rights and
dignity still be respected?

Rights Approach: The ethical action is the one that most dutifully
respects the rights of all affected.

8. Which option is fair to all stakeholders?

Fairness or Justice Approach: The ethical action is the one that treats
people equally, or if unequally, that treats people proportionately and
fairly.

9. Which option would help all participate more fully in the life we
share as a family, community, society?

Common Good Approach: The ethical action is the one that contributes
most to the achievement of a quality common life together.

10. Would you want to become the sort of person who acts this way
(e.g., a person of courage or compassion)?

Virtue Approach: The ethical action is the one that embodies the habits
and values of humans at their best.

----------------------------------------
Make a Decision and Test It
----------------------------------------

11. Considering all these perspectives, which of the options is the
right or best thing to do?

12. If you told someone you respect why you chose this option, what
would that person say? If you had to explain your decision on
television, would you be comfortable doing so?

Act, Then Reflect on the Decision Later

13. Implement your decision. How did it turn out for all concerned? If
you had it to do over again, what would you do differently?

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 - The Problem of Justifying an Ethical Standard
- - - http://www.ditext.com/cornman/corn6.html - - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A) Evaluating Actions versus Evaluating People

B) Method of Critically Evaluating Ethical Theories

C) Theological Ethics

1) Objection: We Must Justify Religious
Claims by Ethical Claims

D) Ethical Relativism

1) Action Relativism versus
Standard Relativism

2) Definition of Ethical Relativism

3) The Argument from Differing
Ethical Judgments

4) The Argument from Different
Ethical Standards

5) Ethical Relativism Defended:
A Modified Argument

E) Ethical Nihilism

1) The Argument from Different
Ethical Standards

2) The Argument from the Lack
of Justification

F) The "No-Standard" Theory

1) The Argument from Exceptions

2) Objection to the No-Standard Theory:
Not Every Ethical Standard
Has Exceptions

3) A Second Objection to the No-Standard
Theory: Nonmoral Agreement but
Moral Disagreement

G) Ethical Skepticism

H) Ethical Egoism

I) Egoistic Hedonism

1) The Argument from
Psychological Egoism

2) Objection to Psychological Egoism:
People Sometimes Act Benevolently

3) Reply: People Always Act Out
of Self-Love

4) Final Objection: People Do Not
Always Act Out of Self-Love

5) The Argument from Good Reasons

6) Objection: Desiring To Do Something
Does Not Justify Doing It

7) Rejection of Egoistic Hedonism:
It Prescribes Morally Repugnant Acts

J) Nonhedonistic Ethical Egoism

1) Objection to Ethical Egoism: It
Prescribes Morally Repugnant Acts

K) Conclusion About Ethical Egoism:
It Should Be Rejected

L) Utilitarianism: Bentham's Version

1) The Principle of Utility

2) Arguments for the Principle of Utility

3) Direct Proofs for the Principle of
Utility: Deriving 'Ought' from 'Is'

- Hume's Objection: No 'Ought'
Is Deducible from 'Is'

- A Further Objection: Naturalistic
(Definist) Fallacy

4) Bentham's Indirect Proof of
the Principle of Utility

- Objection to Bentham's Proof: It
Does Not Disprove All Opposing Views

- The Hedonic Calculus

- An Objection to Bentham's
Principle: Sadistic Pleasures

M) Utilitarianism: Mill's Version

1) Quality versus Quantity of Pleasure

N) An Objection to Utilitarianism:
Special Duties

O) Another Objection to Utilitarianism:
The Problem of Justice

P) Deontological Ethics: Kant's Theory

1) The Highest Good: A Good Will

2) The Moral Law and the
Categorical Imperative

3) The First Formulation of
the Categorical Imperative

- Objection to First Formulation:
Which Maxims to Universalize?

- Another Objection: Cannot
Derive Specific Duties

4) The Second Formulation of
the Categorical Imperative

- An Objection to Kant's Theory:
It Is Not Applicable in All Situations

- A Second Objection: Absolute
versus Prima Facie Duties

- A Third Objection: Kant's Theory
Cannot Resolve Conflicts of Duty

Q) Rule Utilitarianism

1) Acts, Laws, Judges, and Legislators

R) Six Requirements for a Satisfactory
Ethical Standard and an Examination
of Rule Utilitarianism

1) Objection to Rule Utilitarianism:
No Guarantee of Justice

S) A Proposal for a Satisfactory Standard:
A Utilitarian Kantian Principle

T) Conclusion

U) Exercises

- Relativism, Nihilism,
Skepticism, and Egoism

- 'Ought' and 'Is'

- The Definist Fallacy

- Utilitarianism

- Kantianism

- The Utilitarian Kantian Standard

Complete Chapter Here;
http://www.ditext.com/cornman/corn6.html

From the Book;

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm

Immortalist wrote:
If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted
social practice, or science, what are they based on?

I don't remember having done an ethical thing in my life if I didn't expect
either punishment or reward, in that following order.
So there's your answer. Either punishment or reward.

The field of ethics seems to be particularly relevant to the people in the
very specialised circumstance of being rewarded (paid) IN ADVANCE to be
ethical, usually even in a particular flavour. Like priests, politicians,
diplomats, judges, short everyone in public offices, and the ombudsman. It
seems to be rather impracticle if not hypocritical to pose ethics as
universal laws that would go for other people in other circumstances, let
alone anyone in any circumstance. They are the professional assets of peope
who are to make decisions in (semi) public cases, but no rules that govern
general philosophy, as far as I can see.

It would be interesting enough though to describe the different flavours of
ethics expected from priests, ombudsmen, diplomats, judges, resp., and how
these may contribute to the (im)balances in a particular society. Since
their offices are more accurately described as those of SPOKESMEN of
particular interest groups rather than the "universally" independent
councellors their ethical philosophies pretend them to be. Those just tell
us that they would be willing to expand their adminitrative powers
indefinitely. That would be within the scope of general philosophy, because
it would rid us of a universal lie.

In plain language, you come before a particular court, you get judged by a
particular flavour of ethics. If you were allowed to defend yourself, it
would be useful to be familiar with the particulars of the ethics. But not
outside of the court.

This would definitively settle the undying question if "you should always
have lemon tea" is, in fact, an ethical suggestion. Because, if some kind of
punishment were involved, it would be indeed.

You could even, quite redundantly, add it: You should always have lemon tea.
That was an ethical suggestion.

On what do we base our ethical standards?

Immortalist wrote:

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social
practice, or science, what are they based on?

jer0en wrote:

I don't remember having done an ethical thing in my life if I didn't expect
either punishment or reward, in that following order. So there's your

Immortalist wrote:

If what you just described is compliance are you saying you have never made
decisions based up "identification" and "internalization?" You must be like