ETHICS

• Framework 

  Ø  defined as a basic structure underlying a system or a concept.

  Ø  In ethics, it refers to “a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practice that constitutes a way of viewing reality.”
• Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that studies the nature of morality. At such, it talks about the meaning, reference, and truth values of moral judgments. (‘meta’ means ‘beyond’; ‘beyond ethics’)
• METAETHICS also explains what goodness and wickedness mean and how we know about them.
• COGNITIVISM – states that moral judgments convey propositions, that is, they are ‘truth bearers’ or they are either true or false; right and wrong are matters of fact
• Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral judgments are independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions.

  It maintains that morality is about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person or group’s subjective judgment. Moral facts do exist.
• Ø  Ethical subjectivism is also a form of cognitivism
• NON-COGNITIVISM

  Ø  Denies that moral judgments are either true or false.

  Ø  Moral judgments are neither true or false

  Ø  It claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions, hence are neither true nor false.
• Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivist theory. It submits that moral judgments are mere expressions of our emotions and feelings
• Moral Universalism theorizes that moral facts and principles apply to everybody in all places.

  Ø  Moral truth is the same for all people.

  Ø  Also called ‘moral objectivism’

  Ø  Believing that some behaviors are simply wrong, it also submits that if something is right for one, then it is right for another. Moral universalism is very much compatible with ‘moral realism’.
• Moral Relativism on the other hand, submits that different moral facts  and principles apply to different persons or group of individuals.

  Ø  Moral truth is NOT the same for all people.

  Believing that various cultures have distinct standards of right and wrong, it also maintains that ethical standards also change over time even in the same culture.
• Moral Empiricism

  Ø  A meta-ethical stance which states that moral facts are known through observation and experience.

  Ø  The theory is an extension of ‘empiricism’ in epistemology which states that all knowledge of matters of fact is derived from experience and that our mind is not equipped with pre-experience concepts.
• Moral Rationalism

  Ø  Contends that moral facts and principles are knowable a priori (using logic and reason to form conclusion before experience), that is, by reason alone and without reference to experience.

  Ø  The theory relies on reason rather than intuition in justifying a belief or action.
• Moral Intuitionism

  Ø  Submits that moral truths are knowable by intuition that is by immediate instinctive knowledge without reference to any evidence.
•  

  NORMATIVE ETHICS

  Ø  Is the branch of ethics that studies how man ought to act, morally speaking. As the name suggests, it examines ethical norms, that is, those guidelines about what is right, worthwhile, virtuous, or just.

  This branch evaluates standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions and determines a moral course of action. Prescriptive in nature, it addresses specific moral questions about what we should do or believe
• Deontology

  Ø  An ethical system that bases morality on independent moral rules or duties. The term came from the Greek word ‘deon’ which means ‘duty’, implying the foundational nature of man’s duties or obligations. This system equates behaving morally with adherence to duties or moral rules, and acting immorally with failure to obey them.
• Deontology  Also called non-consequentialism, the system’s principles are submitted as obligatory, regardless of the consequences that actions might produce.
• Deontology – is guided by an individuals own personal sense of morality. It is concerned with what people do, not based with the consequences of their actions.
• Teleology

  Ø  Refers to moral system that determines the moral value of actions by their outcomes or results.

  Ø  From the Greek word ‘telos’, which means ‘end,’ teleology takes into account the end result of the action as the exclusive consideration of its morality.
• Teleology deems an action as morally right if its favorable consequences are greater than its adverse outcomes.

  Its most famous form is consequentialism which proposes that morality is determined solely by a cost-benefit evaluation of the action’s consequences
• Virtue Ethics – as a moral system, place an emphasis on developing good habits of character, like kindness and generosity, and avoiding bad character traits, or vices, such as greed or hatred.
• Ø  Virtue-based theories give importance to moral education which molds individuals to habitually act in a virtuous manner. Focusing on the character of the agent, virtue ethics describes right actions as those chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous person.
• Ø  Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”
• Normative Ethics

  Ø  deals with the questions like “which of my actions should be considered as good?”
• Metaethics

  Ø  deals with the questions like “what is good?”

  Ø  Dig into the morality of ethical claims
• APPLIED ETHICS

  Ø  Philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues.
• applied ethics Using philosophical methods, this area of concern in Ethics attempts to determine the ethically correct course of action in specific realms of human action.
•  

  Principle of Liberty (Political)

  Ø  The First Principle of social justice concerns political institutions:

  Ø  Each person has the same and indefeasible [permanent] claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.

  Ø  This principle means that everyone has the same basic liberties, which can never be taken away. (e.g.: Human rights, rights to vote, rights to privacy, etc.)
• Principle of Equality

  This principle maintains that “offices and positions” should be open to any individual, regardless of his or her social background, ethnicity or sex. It is stronger than ‘Formal Equality of Opportunity’ in that Rawls argues that an individual should not only have the right to opportunities, but should have an effective equal chance as another of similar natural ability
•  

  Principle of Differences

  This principle regulates inequalities: it only permits inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off. This is often misinterpreted as trickle-down economics; Rawls’ argument is more accurately expressed as a system where wealth “diffuses up”.
• “veil of ignorance,” these imaginary people would not know their own age, sex, race, social class, religion, abilities, preferences, life goals, or anything else about themselves.
•  

  Rawls argued that only under a “veil of ignorance” could human beings reach a fair and impartial agreement (contract) as true equals not biased by their place in society.
• Ø  Robert Nozick’s argued on by using “merit-based justice”
• Distributive Justice -  is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by (distributed across) group members. The ff. are the common types of distributive norms:
• Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of the rewards/costs
• Equity: Members’ outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very little.
• 1.        Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive less than those in lower level positions.
• Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them, regardless of their input
• 1.        Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with those who have less.
•  

  Retributive justice requires that the punishment be proportionate and meted out at the same level as the crime. In biblical times, retribution was explained with the example of ‘an eye for an eye’ or a ‘tooth for a tooth,’ referenced in the books of Exodus and Leviticus.
• Ø  Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices which maximize welfare.