Ethics

Ethics is a study of right and wrong.  Studying this subject is the reason why I entered the field of Philosophy and although studying all the different branches of Philosophy has been quite a pleasure, I do want to turn my attention to Ethics for a while.  Now, whether it's been a pleasure for everyone around me whenever I divert the conversation into a philosophical debate is questionable but we shall all persevere.  Ethics is broadly divided into 4 sub-topics, at least according to the text I'm studying but it'll have to do as the book provides us a good starting point to spark discussions: value theory, normative ethics, metaethics and moral problems.  These all just roll off your tongue and sound very exciting, but just bear with me.

Value theory has to do with determining what is good.  Before we can start to discuss what is morally good and evil, we must first lay out the foundational stones and figure out what we ought to pursue in life for its own good.  For example, is happiness good in itself?  Should we live our lives with the pursuit of happiness in mind?  We all do try to be happy (most of us) in our own way but is that ultimately what we should pursue in this life?  The most amount of happiness?  Epicurus (341-270 BCE) certainly thought so as he says, "we must exercise ourselves in things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it."  There are many who disagree with this stance and work to establish other things as good in their own rights.

Normative Ethics finally get into a branch of philosophy that tries to identify the all-encompassing principle of right action.  How can we determine what is morally right and wrong?  What standard should we use if any?  Many philosophers have sought after a singular, fundamental principle to unify this field but needless to say, there haven't been one that all of us can agree on.  Kant (1724-1804), for example tells us that "acts are right just because we can use their guiding principles consistently, without involving ourselves in contradiction."  Basically, he thinks that morality is fairness and justice while immorality is a matter of making an exception of yourself, of living by rules that, in some sense, cannot possibly serve as the basis of everyone's actions.

Metaethics, as the prefix would describe it, is the study "beyond ethics".  Metaethics studies such questions as whether moral standards can be true.  Is it all just based on personal opinions or is there an objective truth to moral philosophy?  For example, does God determine what is right and wrong, which in that case, our opinion of the ethical code would be irrelevant as it was determined beyond our existence or thoughts.  Or do we determine moral standards by social consensus?  This would imply that morality is a social construct that can change over time in accordance with a democratic demand for change.  David Hume argues that if morality claims were objectively true and existed regardless of what we thought of it (opposite of subjective), then we should be able to discover it by careful thoughts.  However, Hume argues that no amount of careful reasoning could arrive at this objective moral code.

Moral problems at first glance of the subject seems to be what we need to touch on after learning about the above 3 topics.  It is true that the background knowledge of normative ethics would help to explain many issues regarding moral problems.  However, the author of the text takes caution as to not call this field "applied ethics" so as to demonstrate that these problems cannot simply work as to show how these moral principles are applied in real life.  These problems often represent a variety of different normative ethics and some approach these problems without any background in normative ethics.  Some topics in the textbook include famine relief, same-sex marriage, euthanasia and torture.  Some avoid these topics as to not be polemical but this blog is a space dedicated for discussing these issues.

I've already written a blog about Peter Singer's view on world hunger so that's included in "Moral Problems" section of this blog.  Now that you know what the labels of the blog post indicate, perhaps you will have an easier time trying to understand the intention behind each post.