Philosophy | Ethics

Welcome to the Optional Theme: Ethics!

Hello future philosophers! Ethics is one of the most practical and fascinating optional themes you can choose. It moves beyond abstract logic and asks the fundamental question: How should we live?

Don't worry if this chapter seems dense at first. We are breaking down centuries of intense moral debate into clear, manageable concepts. By the end of this unit, you will be able to analyze any moral dilemma using the frameworks of history's greatest thinkers.

---

Section 1: The Landscape of Ethical Inquiry

1.1 Defining the Terms

When studying ethics, we often use the terms Ethics and Morality interchangeably, but philosophically, they have subtle differences:

• Morality: Refers to the set of rules or practices that govern specific groups or individuals (e.g., personal moral code, cultural morals).
• Ethics: The systematic study of those rules and practices; the theory behind what makes actions right or wrong. It's the philosophical investigation of morality.

1.2 The Three Branches of Ethics

To keep things organized, philosophers divide ethical study into three main areas:

1. Descriptive Ethics

What DO people believe is right or wrong?

• Focus: Observing and reporting how people or societies actually behave and what moral rules they claim to follow (e.g., an anthropologist studying marriage customs).
• Goal: Facts and observations, not judgments.

2. Normative Ethics (The Core of this Chapter)

What SHOULD people do?

• Focus: Developing theories and systems that determine which actions are morally permissible, obligatory, or forbidden.
• Goal: To establish universal or general moral standards (e.g., Utilitarianism, Deontology).

3. Meta-Ethics

What IS 'rightness' itself?

• Focus: Analyzing the meaning of moral language (what does "good" mean?) and the nature of moral facts (do moral facts exist independently of humans?).
• Goal: Understanding the structure and foundation of morality.

Quick Takeaway: We will focus primarily on Normative Ethics, the competing theories that tell us how we ought to act.

---

Section 2: Normative Ethics – The Three Main Theories

Normative ethics tries to provide a clear answer on how to resolve moral dilemmas. We will study the three most influential approaches:

1. Utilitarianism (Consequence-based)
2. Deontology (Duty-based)
3. Virtue Ethics (Character-based)

2.1 Utilitarianism: The Pursuit of Happiness

Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist theory. This means the morality of an action is judged solely by its outcome or result (its consequences).

Key Principle: The Greatest Happiness Principle

The morally right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

• Founders: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
• Goal: Maximize pleasure (happiness) and minimize pain (suffering).

Jeremy Bentham (Quantitative Utilitarianism)

Bentham believed all pleasures were equal—only the quantity (duration, intensity, extent) mattered. He proposed the Hedonistic Calculus: a step-by-step formula to calculate the total amount of pleasure and pain an action would produce.

Analogy: Bentham viewed morality like adding up points on a scoreboard. A good action is one that scores the highest net happiness points.

John Stuart Mill (Qualitative Utilitarianism)

Mill refined Bentham’s ideas, arguing that not all pleasures are equal. There are Higher Pleasures (intellectual, artistic, moral) and Lower Pleasures (sensual, physical).

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." – J.S. Mill

Types of Utilitarianism (Crucial Distinction!)

This distinction is vital for understanding critiques:

1. Act Utilitarianism: Focuses on the consequences of *each individual act*. In every situation, choose the action that maximizes utility right then and there.
2. Rule Utilitarianism: Focuses on the consequences of establishing a *general rule*. We should follow rules (like "Don't steal") because adhering to the rule generally leads to the greatest overall happiness in the long run.

Common Critique: Utilitarianism can justify actions that seem inherently wrong if they lead to a good outcome (e.g., sacrificing an innocent person for the good of five others).

Key Takeaway for Utilitarianism: The ends justify the means, provided the ends produce the most net happiness for the community.

2.2 Deontology: Duty and Universal Rules

Deontology (from the Greek word deon, meaning "duty") is a Non-Consequentialist theory. It argues that the morality of an action rests on adherence to moral rules or duties, regardless of the consequences.

Key Thinker: Immanuel Kant

Kant argued that moral rules must be rational and apply universally to everyone, without exception.

• Good Will: The only thing that is good without qualification is a Good Will—the intention to act out of a sense of duty, simply because it is the right thing to do. Consequences don't matter; your intention does.

The Categorical Imperative (CI)

This is Kant’s supreme principle of morality—a moral law that is absolute and unconditional (it applies *categorically* to everyone).

Don't worry if this sounds abstract. It has two main, easier-to-understand formulations:

Formulation 1: The Universal Law

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Step-by-Step Test:

1. Identify your maxim (the rule you are about to follow). Example: I will lie to get what I want.
2. Universalize it (Imagine everyone does this maxim, all the time). Imagine everyone always lies.
3. Ask: Can I rationally will that this universal law exist? If everyone lied, the concept of truth (and thus lying) would break down, making the maxim impossible.

If universalizing the maxim leads to a contradiction or makes the action impossible, the action is morally wrong (a perfect duty violation).

Formulation 2: Humanity as an End, Never Merely as a Means

Treat rational beings (humans) with respect. We should never use other people simply as tools to achieve our own goals. They must always be respected as Ends in Themselves.

Example: Slavery is wrong because it treats people merely as a means to labor production, disregarding their autonomy and inherent worth as rational beings.

Did you know? Kant believed that because the Categorical Imperative is based purely on reason, it doesn't matter if following it makes you happy or sad; you must obey it because it is rational duty.

Common Critique: Deontology is too rigid. It offers no guidance when duties conflict (e.g., Is it always wrong to lie, even if lying would save an innocent life?).

Key Takeaway for Deontology: Intentions and adherence to universal, rational duty are paramount; consequences are irrelevant.

2.3 Virtue Ethics: Focusing on Character

Virtue Ethics is fundamentally different from the previous two. It shifts the focus from actions ("What should I do?") to character ("What kind of person should I be?").

Key Thinker: Aristotle

Aristotle believed that the goal of human life is achieving Eudaimonia (often translated as "flourishing," "human well-being," or "living well").

The Concept of Virtue (Arete)

Virtues are positive character traits (like honesty, courage, generosity) that allow a person to flourish.

• Virtues are not inborn; they are developed through habit and practice, like learning a skill.
• To achieve Eudaimonia, you must cultivate these virtues.

The Golden Mean (The Doctrine of the Mean)

For Aristotle, virtue is found in the mean (the middle point) between two extremes, or vices:

Vice of Deficiency <— The Golden Mean (Virtue) —> Vice of Excess

Example:

• Deficiency: Cowardice

• Mean: Courage

• Excess: Rashness (Recklessness)

Example:

• Deficiency: Stinginess

• Mean: Generosity

• Excess: Extravagance

Achieving Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia is not a temporary feeling of happiness; it is a lifetime state of excellence and living in accordance with reason.

Analogy: If Utilitarianism is a moral GPS telling you the destination, and Deontology is a rigid map with strict road rules, Virtue Ethics is a coaching manual on how to become the best driver possible.

Common Critique: Virtue Ethics provides weak practical guidance. It tells you to "be brave" but doesn't tell you *what* the brave person would do in a complex dilemma (like the Trolley Problem).

Key Takeaway for Virtue Ethics: Morality is about being a good person, and good actions flow naturally from a virtuous character.

---

Section 3: Meta-Ethics – The Foundation of Morality

As IB Philosophy students, you must also be able to analyze the fundamental nature of moral claims. Meta-ethics explores whether moral truths are objective or subjective.

3.1 Moral Realism (Moral Objectivism)

The Belief: Moral truths exist independently of human feelings, beliefs, or culture. Moral statements are like factual statements (e.g., "The Earth is round").

• Example: A realist believes that "Murder is wrong" is a fact, true for everyone, everywhere, whether they believe it or not.
• Philosophical Connections: Religious ethics, or Platonic forms of the Good.

3.2 Moral Anti-Realism (Moral Subjectivism)

The Belief: Moral truths are invented, subjective, or relative to human opinion. Moral statements are expressions of approval, commands, or cultural norms.

A. Ethical Relativism

The belief that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture (Cultural Relativism) or to the individual person (Individual Subjectivism). There is no universal moral standard.

• Challenge: If morality is entirely relative, how can we critique or judge cultures (or individuals) whose practices seem cruel or harmful?

B. Emotivism (A form of Anti-Realism)

A statement like "Stealing is wrong" is not a statement of fact or truth; it is simply an expression of the speaker's negative feelings or emotions, like saying "Boo! Stealing!"

• Challenge: If moral arguments are just expressions of feelings, then rational debate about morality is impossible.

Tip for HL Students: Understanding Meta-Ethics helps you analyze the methodology and meaning of the theories in Section 2. For instance, Kant's Deontology is often rooted in a form of Moral Realism because the CI is supposed to be a universal, rationally discoverable truth.

---

Section 4: Applied Ethics – Putting Theory into Practice

Applied Ethics involves taking the normative theories (Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics) and applying them to specific real-world problems. In your essays, you will often need to show how these theories clash when dealing with concrete issues.

Example: Analyzing the Morality of Euthanasia

1. Utilitarian Analysis: Would the patient's pain, combined with the distress of family/staff, outweigh the utility gained by prolonging life? If ending life maximizes the overall net happiness (by ending suffering), it might be justified.
2. Deontological Analysis: Does the rule "Do not kill" constitute a universal duty? Kant might argue that to allow suicide or killing undermines the absolute rational duty to preserve life, regardless of suffering.
3. Virtue Ethics Analysis: What virtues are relevant here (Compassion? Wisdom? Justice?)? What decision would a truly compassionate and wise doctor make, focusing on human flourishing (Eudaimonia) rather than just duty or consequence?

Remember: When writing your essays, the goal is not just to state what the theory says, but to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses when applied to complex, messy situations.

You’ve got this! Ethics is challenging, but deeply rewarding because it directly impacts how we understand ourselves and our place in the world.