Ethics Skill

Master ethical theory: metaethics (nature of morality), normative ethics (what we ought to do), and applied ethics (specific issues).

Structure of Ethics

ETHICAL THEORY
══════════════

METAETHICS
├── What is the nature of moral claims?
├── Are there moral facts?
└── Can we have moral knowledge?

NORMATIVE ETHICS
├── What makes actions right/wrong?
├── Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics
└── General moral principles

APPLIED ETHICS
├── Specific moral issues
├── Bioethics, environmental ethics, business ethics
└── Applying principles to cases

---

Metaethics

Moral Realism vs. Anti-Realism

Moral Realism:

• There are objective moral facts
• Moral claims are truth-apt
• Some moral beliefs are true

Moral Anti-Realism:

• Error theory: Moral claims are false
• Non-cognitivism: Moral claims aren't truth-apt
• Relativism: Truth relative to culture/individual

Non-Cognitivism

Emotivism (Ayer, Stevenson):

• "X is wrong" = "Boo X!"
• Moral claims express attitudes, not beliefs

Prescriptivism (Hare):

• "X is wrong" = "Don't do X!"
• Moral claims are universal prescriptions

Expressivism (Blackburn, Gibbard):

• Moral claims express non-cognitive states
• But can still be "true" in a deflated sense

Moral Epistemology

Intuitionism: We directly perceive moral truths Rationalism: Moral truths knowable a priori Naturalism: Moral facts = natural facts Constructivism: Moral truths constructed by rational procedures

---

Normative Ethics

Consequentialism

Core Idea: Actions are right if they produce best outcomes

CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES
═════════════════════════

UTILITARIANISM
├── Maximize happiness/pleasure
├── Bentham: Quantity of pleasure
├── Mill: Quality matters too
└── Hedonistic vs. preference utilitarianism

ACT UTILITARIANISM
├── Each act evaluated by its consequences
└── Problems: demanding, counter-intuitive

RULE UTILITARIANISM
├── Follow rules that maximize utility
└── Handles some objections

CONSEQUENTIALIST FORMULA:
Right action = Action that maximizes good outcomes

Objections:

• Integrity (Williams): Alienates us from our projects
• Justice: Might justify punishing innocents
• Demandingness: Requires constant maximization
• Calculation: Impossible to know all consequences

Deontology

Core Idea: Actions have intrinsic rightness/wrongness regardless of consequences

KANTIAN ETHICS
══════════════

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (CI)
├── Formula of Universal Law
│   └── Act only on maxims you can will as universal laws
├── Formula of Humanity
│   └── Treat humanity never merely as means
└── Formula of Autonomy
    └── Act as if legislating for a kingdom of ends

APPLYING THE CI:
1. Formulate maxim (e.g., "Lie when convenient")
2. Universalize: What if everyone acted this way?
3. If contradiction (logical or practical), action is wrong
4. Lying universalized → No trust → Lying pointless
   ∴ Lying is wrong

Deontological Constraints:

• Some acts wrong regardless of consequences
• Negative duties (don't harm) stronger than positive (help)
• Agent-relative: My killing is worse than allowing death

Virtue Ethics

Core Idea: Focus on character, not acts or rules

VIRTUE ETHICS
═════════════

EUDAIMONIA (Flourishing)
├── The good life; well-being
├── Achieved through virtue
└── Not just feeling good

VIRTUES
├── Character traits that promote flourishing
├── Courage, temperance, justice, wisdom
├── Acquired through habituation
└── Mean between extremes

PHRONESIS (Practical Wisdom)
├── Knowing what virtue requires in situations
├── Cannot be reduced to rules
└── Developed through experience

VIRTUOUS PERSON AS STANDARD:
Right action = What the virtuous person would do

Neo-Aristotelian: MacIntyre, Foot, Hursthouse Challenges: Action guidance, moral disagreement, relativism

Comparison

Theory	What's Primary	Right Action
Consequentialism	Good outcomes	Maximizes good
Deontology	Right acts/duties	Follows rules
Virtue Ethics	Good character	What virtuous do

---

Thought Experiments

Trolley Problems

TROLLEY CASES
═════════════

SWITCH:
Trolley heading to kill 5.
Flip switch → diverts to kill 1.
Most say: Permissible

FOOTBRIDGE:
Trolley heading to kill 5.
Push large man off bridge to stop trolley.
Most say: Impermissible

WHY THE DIFFERENCE?
├── Doing vs. allowing
├── Intended vs. foreseen (Double Effect)
├── Using person as means
└── Physical contact

Experience Machine

Nozick: Would you plug into a machine that simulates perfect happiness?

• Most say no → Pleasure isn't everything
• Authenticity, achievement, reality matter

Violinist

Thomson: You wake up connected to a famous violinist who needs your kidneys.

• Argues: Even if fetus is person, abortion can be permissible
• Your body, your choice

---

Applied Ethics Topics

Bioethics

• Abortion, euthanasia, genetic enhancement
• Autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice

Environmental Ethics

• Animal rights, climate change, future generations
• Anthropocentrism vs. biocentrism

Social/Political Ethics

• Distributive justice, human rights
• Rawls' veil of ignorance, libertarianism

---

Key Vocabulary

Term	Meaning
Deontology	Duty-based ethics
Consequentialism	Outcome-based ethics
Utilitarianism	Maximize happiness
Virtue	Excellence of character
Eudaimonia	Flourishing, well-being
Categorical imperative	Unconditional moral law
Supererogatory	Beyond duty, praiseworthy
Prima facie	At first glance, defeasible
Intrinsic value	Valuable in itself
Instrumental value	Valuable as means
Moral realism	Objective moral facts exist

---

Integration with Repository

Related Themes

• thoughts/morality/: Ethical explorations
• thoughts/life_meaning/: Good life, flourishing