Describe the philosophical study of ethics.

1

Chapter 1: Ethics and Ethical Reasoning

Learning Outcomes •Describe the philosophical study of ethics.•Discuss the difference between normative and descriptive claims.

•Define key terms: intuitionism, emotivism, objectivism, and subjectivism.

•Explain the difference between metaethics and normative ethics.•Decide whether naturalistic explanations of ethics commit the naturalistic fallacy.•Differentiate between instrumental and intrinsic values.•Distinguish consequentialist from nonconsequentialist approaches to ethics.•Use the distinctions among motives, acts, and consequences to analyze ethical phenomena.Associated Readings 1.Hume, “Ethical Judgments and Matters of Fact” from A Treatise on Human Nature

(1739)

2.Stevenson, “Emotivism and Ethics” from Facts and Values (1963) Getting Started One might begin a discussion of ethics by asking what it is and why we need it. People disagree about issues such as abortion and gay marriage. It is important to understand why we think things are right or wrong. There are several aspects to the nature of ethics: that ethics addresses questions of good and bad or right and wrong, that it asks us to give reasons for our views or opinions about this, and that when these views are traced to questions of basic values they form the beginnings of an ethical theory.Key Terms

Normative ethics: study of prescriptive accounts of how we ought to behave.

Metaethics: study of moral concepts and the logic of ethical language.

Descriptive claims: propositions that state true or false claims about facts in the world.(Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues, 9e Barbara MacKinnon, Andrew Fiala) (solution Manual all Chapters) 1 / 4

Instructor Resource Manual – Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, 9e – MacKinnon & Fiala 2 Normative judgments: evaluative or prescriptive claims about what is good, evil, just, and the like.Hume’s law: the claim (derived from David Hume’s thinking) that it is illegitimate to derive an “ought” from an “is”; see also naturalistic fallacy.Naturalistic fallacy: argument that inappropriately derives normative claims from descriptive claims (associated with Moore); see also Hume’s law.Natural law: a theory of law that is grounded in claims about nature; natural law ethics is a normative theory that holds that reason can discover objective ethical norms by examining natural human functions (associated with Aquinas).Sociobiology: a field of study that applies evolutionary and comparative biology to understanding social phenomena, including ethical behaviors.Intuitionism: metaethical idea that ethical truths are objective and irreducible and can be known by faculty of intuition (associated with Moore).Emotivism: metaethical idea that ethical propositions express emotional states (associated with Stevenson).Objectivism: metaethical idea that ethical propositions refer to objective facts (versus subjectivism).Subjectivism: metaethical idea that ethical propositions refer to subjective dispositions or values (versus objectivism).Instrumental value/goods: things that are useful or good as tools or as means toward some other good (versus intrinsic goods).Intrinsic value/goods: things that have value in themselves and not merely as tools or means (versus instrumental goods); see also inherent worth.

Sound argument: a valid argument with true premises.

Valid argument: an argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.Premises: the reasons given in an argument that provide support for the argument’s conclusion. 2 / 4

Instructor Resource Manual – Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, 9e – MacKinnon & Fiala 3 Begging the question: a fallacious argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the premises (also called a circular argument).Ad hominem: a phrase meaning “to the person”; ad hominem arguments are (usually) fallacious arguments that attack a person rather than the person’s idea or logical reasoning.Arguments from analogy: arguments based upon a comparison between items; relevant similarities among things are intended to incline us to accept conclusions about these things that are also relevantly similar.Consequentialism: normative theories that focus on the consequences of actions; examples include egoism, altruism, utilitarianism (versus non-consequentialism).Deontological ethics: normative theory that morality ought to be focused on duties and adherence to rules and imperatives (associated with Kant).Answers to End of Chapter Review Exercises 1.a. False. Ethics is not the study of how or why people do act, but a study of how they ought to act (and why).b.False. Ethical claims are normative judgments, not merely descriptive claims. To resolve disputes about an ethical claim, we must critically analyze the arguments given for and against the claim and assess the validity of those arguments.c.False. The given statement makes a descriptive claim about what most people believe.Ethical evaluations are normative judgments.

2.a. N and R b.D c.N and A d.D e.N and L f.N and E 3.Philosophers differ about whether our moral judgments refer to something objective, or are reports of our subjective feelings. Those who say that ethics is objective believe that values are objects available for knowledge. Thus, objectivism holds that ethical value is an actual characteristic of the thing being evaluated (whether that thing is an action per se, the consequences of an action, the character of an agent, or the agent’s intentions). Objectivists emphasize the goodness of the thing-in-itself. Those who believe ethics is subjective claim 3 / 4

Instructor Resource Manual – Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, 9e – MacKinnon & Fiala 4 that value judgments express a subjective opinion. Moral judgments rest upon subjective experience and how that experience makes the person making the claim feel. Thus, subjectivism holds that ethical claims are simply characterizations of the evaluator’s feelings about something rather than a characterization of the thing itself.

4.Emotivism maintains that when we say something is good, we are simply expressing our approval of it. Instead of describing the item or experience, we are recommending it to others.Intuitionism claims that our ideas about ethics rest upon some sort of intuitive knowledge of ethical truths. Thus, according to intuitionism, good or goodness is a nonempirical property knowable through intuition.

5.Some ethicists suggest that an advantage of using naturalistic explanations is that it is insightful, and leads us to understand the basic functions of our species. For example, natural law ethicists argue that the way in which nature is ordered allows us to derive ethical precepts.Accordingly, natural law theory focuses on human nature and determines ethical precepts on the basis of what is natural for humans.The disadvantage of naturalistic explanations in ethics is that they can easily lead to the naturalistic fallacy. Suspicions of naturalistic fallacy come from an understanding that the ways we actually do behave are not reliable guides for how we ought to behave. For example, the fact that we desire something does not tell us that the desire is good. Therefore, the uncritical use of naturalistic explanations can lead a person to condone unethical behavior.

6.a. C b.A c.M Questions for Further Thought

• Do you think that ethics can be taught? Why is this a difficult question to answer? What does

it depend on?

• What role, if any, do you believe that emotions should play in moral reasoning? Why?
• Do you think that an action ought to be judged morally in terms of its motive, its

consequences, something about the nature of the action, or some combination of these?Explain.Answers to the Study Questions for Hume, “Ethical Judgments and Matters of Fact”

• / 4