OCR Ethics

Rules or guidelines for human behavior
(cf. morality, which is knowing the difference between right an wrong)

Focuses on the consequences when deciding whats right or wrong

Usually linked to subjectivity & relation, no hard rules

SITUATION ETHICS
UTILITARIANISM

Focuses on duties when deciding what's right or wrong.
Some things are right or wrong in themselves, not because of consequences

Usually linked to objectivity & absolutism

NATURAL LAW
KANTIAN ETHICS

Right and wrong depend on culture, people, religion, circumstance etc.
An action may be right in one situation but wrong in another
✓ Non-judgemental and tolerant towards different beliefs and behaviour
✓ Embraces social change and development
✓ Doesn't rely on outdated sources of authority
(e.g. religious leaders)
Allows too much, difficult to condemn abhorrent actions
Recues morality to what is socially acceptable

DIVERSITY THESIS: Because of the diversity across and within cultures, there cannot be one true morality

DEPENDENCY THESIS: Right or wrong depends on the nature of the society

Some are always right and some things are always wrong, regardless of other factors

✓ Clear and simple to apply
✓ Allows absolute judgements to be made about the actions of others
✓ Allows courts of law to exist and be maintained

Ignores circumstance
Can seem intolerant of cultural diversity

Natural Law
Situation Ethics

Utilitarianism
Kantian Ethics

"REASON AND MORALITY" 1978

Whether someone on a dessert island would be capable of living a moral life. They'd have no duty to others, none towards himself
Even if he had moral demands, they'd fall short of a full moral life = moral life entails life in a community

Moral life is flawed from our understanding of the Form of Good, wrongdoing is the result of ignorance

Simply knowing what's right and wrong isn't enough to direct behaviour

Moral life requires a kind a practical reasoning, just as art does. Knowing what a good painting is doesn't make you a good painter

Moral judgement requires careful thought and the ability to work out right + wrong

An absolutist theory

Relies on Aquinas' basic understand that humans innately try to do good and avoid evil in order to find happiness + fulfillment (SYNDERESIS RULE)

Reason is used in order to establish how we should live our lives.
We use our reason to fulfill the requirements of the primary precepts + achieve aim of doing good and avoiding evil

Reason may be used incorrectly because of following apparent good rather than real good.
e.g. taking drugs, may seem like doing a good thing, but isn't

Aquinas: God knows the secrets of our hearts so actions must be interior rather than exterior - motive counts

Developing moral and intellectual virtues, so that we can undertake God's actions with God's intentions

THEOLOGICAL VALUES: faith, hope, charity
CARDINAL VALUES: prudence, justice, courage

EUDAIMONIA: a full flourishing of a human person and their abilities
The universe is purposive, things on earth seek to achieve their goal = their TELOS
- plants do this blindly - animals follow their instinct - humans have to use fully rational thought
Our earthly goal is to flourish, can only reach our full potential in the next life
- to achieve this we need to live this life in the faithful service of God + by the light of reason
Desire to be with God is the centre of our natural destiny

INTELLECT > INTUITION

We are rational creatures capable of directing our behavior through though
Instinct or gut feeling do not tell us what we should do
The general precepts of NL are variable but their application isn't
-we need to look into the results of our actions in a rational way
"Prudence entails not only consideration of the reason but also the application to action, which is the goal of practical reason" - aquinas

IUS: the general principle of a law, not the specific regulations
LEX: refers to specific rule or regulation
Natural law must always be understood as ius, not as a legalistic system of precise regulations
If we just followed Lex, we wouldn't be thinking, just blindly following- we must make an active choice

= An act may have more than one effect and be
known to have more than one.
- E.g. the action that may save on person's life
may harm another
- What matter is the intention

4 conditions required:
1) The act must not be evil in itself - (killing isn't intrinsically evil in the way murder always is)
2) The evil and good that come from the act must be at least equal- Preferably good > evil
3) The intention of the agent must be good- Must not want to bring around any evil result
4) A proportionally serious reason must be present to justify allowing the indirect bad effect

1) ETERNAL LAW - God's will for how the universe needs to be.- Unknown to humans
2) DIVINE LAW- Revealed by God, e.g. the 10 commandments- Aquinas: divine law teaches what our natural reason is capable of knowing
3) NATURAL AW- 'Right reason in accordance to human nature- This can be worked out by considering what is good for human flourishment
4) HUMAN LAW - As social animals, we need to make regulations for society to make it orderly + allow people to flourish
- Aquinas: human law must not dictate anything contrary to natural law
In this order as each law follows on and relies on the law before it

PRIMARY- Fundamental principles revealed to us by God
1. Self-preservation/ preservation of the innocent
2. Reproduction
3. Education of children
4. To live in a society
5. To worship God

SECONDARY- Use reason to establish rules that fulfill requirements of the primary precepts
- Examples:- Do not murde - Don't have abortions

✓ Fair set of rules for everyone
✓ All the the things that are good are celebrated, rather than a focus on the negative
✓ Humans are the centre of the approach, not rules
✓ Allows the use of reason = feel in control of the secondary precepts
✓ Allows the establishment of common rules = can structure communities

Modern forms doesn't allow for negotiation- e.g. the church has made secondary precepts into absolute ruleS
Argument that we gained our natural instincts through evolution = no need for a God-based theory
We observe cultural differences, rejects the notion of a single natural purpose for all humans
VARDY & GOSH: gives too simple a view of human nature- e.g. is sexuality just about reproduction
Unclear what to do when the primary precepts conflict. Naive to assume all people want to be good

- Developed by Joseph Fletcher - Relies on the principles that Christian love is the
right thing to do in ethical situations
- Justice = love in action - When love demands for a conventional rule to be put aside, it should be put aside
3 moral options
1) Legalism = reduces moral life to a system of regulations- Fixed moral rules which are universal and always to be followed
2) Antinomianism = rules and principles could be followed - No rules to follow, only our own choices
3) Situationalism = belief in the rule of love, but believes that it needs to be applied in context

EROS: lustful, sexual love
PHILIA: an obsessive, dedicated love
AGAPE:selfless, unconditional love
For Fletcher, Agape = Good
The last supper (John 13): "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another"

1) PRAGMATISM:- seeking workable, practical solutions rather than trying to find something abstract
2) RELATIVISM:- belief that (according to Fletcher) the moral act should always be relative to the needs of the performer + situation
3) POSITIVISM:- the commitment to a God of love and to love as the main requirement of ethical life
4) PERSONALISM belief that all good is always good for a person/persons and never abstract. Goodness must always be experienced as good by someone

The principles support the propositions, should be followed in all our judgements
1) LOVE = THE ONLY INTRINSIC GOOD
2) LOVE PERMANENTLY GUIDES CHRISTIAN DECISIONS
3) LOVE = JUSTICE
4) LOVE IS ALTRUISTIC
5) THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, NOTHING ELSE
6) LOVING DECISIONS ARE SITUATIONAL

- Conscience is a verb
- We do things in a way that show conscience
- It is fluid, not fixed

- Describes love as "One ultimate and invariable duty"
- Love is absolute, doing the loving thing is situational (judgement relative)
- Agrees with Aquinas that an act is judged by context

✓ Simple Focuses on other (agape) ✓Allows people to take responsibility for their actions and decided for themselves what is right and wrong
✓ J.A.T ROBINSON: "an ethic for humanity come of age"
✓ Fundamental principles do a good job of defining love and explaining what it means to be loving in practice

Vagueness - does it only apply to current situations or past/future too
- e.g. if I save someone then they kill 5 people, is my action still good?
Teleological so hinges on outcomes, can we ever really guarantee a good outcome?- D.Z PHILLIPS
Assumes that following rules = absolutist - even in court, they consider the situation of the law breaker- characterises rules wrong
Just because an action was the 'right' thing doesnt mean it was a good actioN- D.Z PHILLIPS
-e.g. giving money to the poor for your own benefit

AQUINAS: we do have a conscience - we can look back at things and regret them = implies we have a noun conscience
ROSS: we have duties that can be broken if the situation is right
- to be honest, faithful etc
Contradicts biblical rules - Evangelicals would argue it goes againt the bible
- can't say there arent rules as the Bible (commandments) has them

Immanuel Kant- German philosopher, 1724 - 1804
- Key modern philosopher - part of Enlightenment...otherwise known as Age of Reason
- Focus on rationalism and a priori knowledge absolutist and deontological approach to ethics
Essential point: morality can be established purely through reason
Religion is not just unnecessary, but best avoided for morality

Absolute morality - duties
- There are objective laws governing morality which cannot be broken - MORAL LAW
- Emotions are unreliable and subjective - must be put aside
- Moral rules for individuals and society can be worked out rationally, just like mathematical rules
Moral value exists beyond consequences
- Duty to follow rules - if it is good with no qualification (i.e. no exceptions etc.), then it is ethical
- Duties only apply if it is possible for us to fulfil them - no obligation to bring about world peace, for example

Imperatives = what one ought to do to reach summum bonam (ultimate good)

Hypothetical imperative = done in order to achieve a goal
- Based on desire - heteronomous will (e.g. in order to make a cup of tea, you ought to put the kettle on)

Tells us what actions would be good as a means to achieving something else
- e.g. if you want to be muscular, going to the gym is good

Categorical imperative = done because they are a goal in themselves... i.e. they are correct and good
- Based on rational knowledge of what is a good end (e.g. you ought to always tell the truth - duties) - autonomous will
- A set of absolute, unconditional commands, telling us what we must do and which actions we must not do
- It's required and justified as an end in itself, not as means to some other end = opposite of hypothetical imperative
MAXIM = a general principle, rule or opposed action

UNIVERSAL LAW FORMULATION
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
- only do something if your'e willing for everyone else to do it too, we are not an exception
- i.e making a false promise, not helping others, suicide
END-IN-ITSELF FORMULATION
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your ow person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end" - Must respect others because they are valuable in themselves, they aren't valuable because of what they could be used for
KINGDOM OF END FORMULATION
"Act as if you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends"
- combination of the first two - we should act as if treating other people as ends in themseles were a universal law

Freedom of the soul
- If we have an obligation, this implies responsibility & human freedom in this world

Immortality of the soul
- Happiness and virtue are not necessarily aligned in this life
- Implies life after death (where happiness is aligned with virtue)

Existence of God
- If happiness is to be aligned with virtue, then there must be some mechanism that makes this happen i.e. God

TYPES OF WILL
- If I act morally then I'm capable of exercising autonomy of the will
- autonomous will = tells me if an action is right if it conforms to duty
- heteronomous will = tells me than an action is right if it satisfies my desires or emotions
- therefore, we act out of autonomous will

INNATE MORALS - Morality is not empirical, but rational
- Morality can be verified/falsified (i.e. synthetic statements can be made)- Rejecting moral duties = logical mistake

GOOD WILL - Good will can never make a situation morally worse; other factors (e.g. judgement, intelligence, power) can
- Good will wishes one to fulfil one's duty

✓Straight-forward approach - not dependent on motives, so all can use it
✓Clear rules to follow - no ambiguity
✓Unbiased - all are treated equally
✓Does not involve emotions, which are difficult to manage and can deceive us
✓Sees humans as valuable in themselves; dignity and respect for humanity
✓ Gives clear criteria to help us assess what is moral

Narrow range of examples given for first form - are they enough to create a general rule? Can we ignore consequences?
Are some matters purely particular, not universal?
World is not a rational place...why focus fully on rational?
Gives inadequate place to emotions
- compassion, guilt, sympathy etc - to separate these from morality is to ignore a central part of moral behaviour
Can't cope with conflicting duties
- what if I must steal to keep a promise, which duty becomes priority?
Wrong to say only the action itself matters
- If honourable actions lead to bad results, the person is still morally culpable for their actions

The greatest good to the greatest number?
- Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) - Enlightenment
- John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) - pupil of Bentham
- Peter Singer (1946 ) - Modern Era
Relativism
- Consequences matter most, not intent (cf. Kant)
- First ideas came from David Hume: human morality based in self-interest
- We should pursue pleasure or happiness, not just for ourselves but for as many sentient beings as possible
- Suggests that moral decisions should be made from the position of a "benevolent, disinterested spectator"

egalitarianism = the happiness of any given person in a situation is no more or less important than the happiness of another
- The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its 'utility' (or usefulness).
- If the action maximises pleasure and minimises pain then it is useful and therefore morally good
- Happiness is the END of our actions
- Everything else is MEANS to this end

BENTHAM
Based in hedonism - seeking of pleasure, avoidance of pain
- Anti-capital/corporal punishment
- Advocated equal women's rights, homosexual rights, right to divorce
Act to maximise pleasure for maximum number
- "Seek always the greatest balance of good over evil" - Bentham

- Used to calculate the greatest pleasure - Sees "good" and "pleasure" as interchangeable
BENTHAM
7 criteria for the calculus
1) Intensity- how strong is the pleasure
2) Duration- how long will it last
3) Certainty- how likely is it that it will truly happen
4) Propinquity- how soon will it happen
5) Fecundit - how likely is it that pleasant actions will follow
6) Purity- how unlikely is it that the actions will lead to pain rather than pleasure
7) Extent- how many people will be affected

✓ SECULAR MORALITY- doesn't depend on religious beliefs, an advantage in an increasingly secular world
✓ CONNECTION WITH HUMAN NATURE- starts from a consideration of human desire for happiness
✓ COMMON-SENSE APPROACH- seems common sense that happiness is the goal we all aim for
✓ DECISION PROCEDURE - tells us how to act in a given situation, practical
✓ EGALITARIANISM- fits with the view that we should treat everyone equally

DISTRIBUTION OF GOOD (JUSTICE)- How good should be distributed isn't account for
- e.g. giving 1 person £100 or giving 100 people £1
- same net amount of pleasure and pain, the 1 person would feel more pleasure though
NATURAL RIGHTS- what if a right to life and liberty of an individual interferes with the general greatest goodness
PLEASURE = GOOD?- the concept of pleasure = good needs redefining
- G.E Moore said "ideally good" is better
SUFFICIENT PLEASURE- "Seek always the greatest balance of good over evil"
- therefore enough happiness in enough people can justify atrocities

MILL- Create general rules that increase happiness, follow these rules
- Situationalist - 'On Liberty': Harm Principle - free to act as one sees fit as long as it is not harming others
- Believes that we must follow some ethical or moral guidelines
- In order to have the greatest good to the greatest number, we must have rules
- addresses the AU problem of having to do complicated calculations for every act
- Experience tells us which rules/ actions lead to the greatest happiness over time
STRONG - Situationalist, but more deontological - Stick to rules that create happiness
WEAK - Situationalist, but more teleological - Can bendreak rules... "guidelines"

✓ Some general rules can be formed which benefit society
- these rules will generally be right in most circumstances (e.g. telling the truth)
✓ Weak RU allows for rules to be set aside if a better consequence could be achieved another way

Difficult to predict consequences
Difficult to define what constitutes as happiness
The approach is more deontological than teleological
Strong & weak versions are both unsatisfactory
- following strict rules is irrational - weak RU is no different from AU

SINGER - modern advocate R.M. HARE - founder
The greatest fulfilment of desires to the greatest number
- Rational utilitarianism - no emotion/sentimentality
Focus shifted from human pleasure to general preference
- Preference is not always pleasure - altruism
- Preference can be minimised suffering for animals (something Bentham agreed with)
- 'the best interests' of the individuals concerned at the heart of the ethical decision making.
- Singer's formulation of utilitarianism replaces 'pleasure' with 'best interests'

NINIAN SMART - modern advocate
KARL POPPER - founder
- The smallest amount of harm occurring to the smallest number
- Prevents treating people as a means to achieve good
- Supporters argue that this is a more effective ethical formula, since the greatest harms have more consequences than the greatest goods

✓ Straight-forward and easy to follow
✓ A good ethical code is a universal one - utilitarianism is universal
✓ Generally accepted as fair, as no-one gets special treatment (with the possible exception of preference utilitarianism)
✓ Not tied to religion or culture - works anywhere, in any society
✓ Truly democratic - rules by the people, for the people
✓ Relates to, and solves, real-world actions and problems
✓ Preference utilitarianism involves considering others' preferences - altruism
✓ Attractive principle - everyone gains pleasure and minimises pain

Allows evil to occur as long as more good is created, so how can it be called a true moral theory?
Is our judgement good enough to make these moral judgements (teleological problem)
If you are incapable of good reasoning/judgement, are you immoral?
How do you tell if an act truly is 'good' e.g. unwittingly saving the life of a murderer

Euthanasia: "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma"
- In UK law, 1961 Suicide Act decriminalised suicide, but did not make it legal
- Seems to support autonomy, but actually reinforces vitalism
- Concerns over "slippery slope"

RELIGIOUS APPROACH - "Human life is made in God's image and is therefore sacred in value."
- the intrinsic dignity and value of human life is identical
- isn't measured by mobility, intelligence or achievements in life etc
- patients in a persistent vegetative state remain living beings so their intrinsic value remains
STRONG- belief that human life is always valuable from the moment of conception until natural death
- there are no exceptions - life is a gift from God and is on loan to humans
WEAK - belief that although human life is always valuable, there may be situations where it could be more harm than good
- no one has the duty to endure a life of extreme pain - life is a gift, not a burden

EXODUS 20:13
"You shall not murder"

GENESIS 1:27-28
"God made mankind in his own image"

Human life has to possess certain attributes in order to have value.- these attributes might include experience of happiness, consciousness or having autonomy
Instrumentalism: someone or something is of value only if it is useful and achieves a desired end or purpose
SINGER Set out 5 new rational QL commandments to replace those of SL
1) recognise that the worth of human life varies
2) take responsibility for the consequences of your decision
3) respect a person's desire to live or to die
4) bring children into the world, only if wanted
5) do not discriminate on the basis of species
HAPPINESS AS BASIS- whether their happiness outweighs their unhappiness
AUTONOMY AS BASIS - value of life comes from ability to determine one's future or "self-rule"
CONSCIOUSNESS AS BASIS- GLOVER: for life to be worthwhile, it must also be conscious

A person's life is ended at their request or with their consent

- Allowing to die, or cutting a life short
- Ends & means (consequentialism)
- Double effect (deontology)

DIANE PRETTY - Had Motor Neuron Disease - terminal illness
- disease worsened and it was impossible for her to move or communicate easily
- round the clock care was needed
- asked her husband to help her die but wasn't allowed
- died in 2002, lung and chest problems

A person's life is ended without their consent but with the consent of someone representing their interests...
How do you define death? - what about permanent vegetative states
Best interests of the person - dead donor rule = when there is no brain activity or bodily function

TONY BLAND - Football fan injured in the Hillsborough disaster - severe brain damage
- persistent vegetative state - Hospital (with support of parents) appealed for him to "die with dignity"
- First patient in English legal history to have legal euthanasia through withdrawal of life prolonging treatment (inc food + water)

DR DAVID MOOR- GP prosecuted in 1999 for euthanasia of a patient - George Liddell - bowl cancer
- condition worsened, became depressed and was in significant pain - argued by carers to be "terminally ill"
- Moor injected him with morphine and choloropromazine - admitted to helping up to 300 people die - found not guilt

MICHAEL SCHUMACHER - traumatic brain injury in skiing incident - medically induced coma for 6 months
- can't remember, speak or breath on his own - can't walk - still living, medical bills to date are £20 million

- Needs to be an important distinction between 'allowing to die' (permitted) and 'cutting short a life' (intrinsically wrong)

SOCIAL STABILITY
- undermines the social stability of society because it undermines the purpose of the citizen to maintain its laws
- a sign that society has failed it's duty to care for all members

DUTY TO GOD
- Aquinas + Augustine argue that suicide (+ euthanasia) is a failure of the duty to protect and innocent life

NO REFUSAL OF TREATMENT
- Can't refuse a patient ordinary treatment
- the pope defined ordinary treatment as obligatory
- things such as food and water which sustain life, not necessarily prolong it

DUTY TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIFE
- whatever state of consciousness, a person is still a person and must be protected
- a doctor has the duty to protect a patient from committing suicide or assisting it

- Fletcher himself saw suicide and euthanasia as justified if out of compassion

PRAGMATISM
- each case has to be judged according to its merits
- no intrinsic laws which prohibit the use of euthanasia
- Using limited resources to keep a terminally ill patient alive at the expense of the other patients welfare isn't justifiable

RELATIVISM
- killing innocent people cannot be an absolute wrong as each case has to be judged according to love and compassion

POSITIVISM
- no law which states that life must be preserved at all costs
- laws and rules are invented by humans to assist in the humane treatment of each other
- might mean allowing or helping someone to die

PERSONALISM
- principle of love means acknowledging that a person's life might cease to be of instrumental value to them
- recognises that humanity is more significant than mere biological existence

There are 2 possible ways to approach business;
1) FREEMARKET: prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, they are completely free from government interference
2) REGULATION: prices for goods and services are initially set by the market and consumers but are regulated by the government

- It considers the relationship between businesses and consumers, between businesses and their employees and also the impact of globalisation on the environment and society as a whole
- Business and corporate responsibility are becoming driven by social, political and economic developments in the world, not necessarily to become more ethical however

NATURAL LAW'S VIEW
- Believe in an ordered society, businesses should be regulated to ensure that workers are being treated properly
- Money here is an efficient cause for business so some companies look to save money and cut corners to increase profits, However, Aristotle said that the final cause was more important

Conflicting ideas on primary responsibility
- Responsibility to stakeholders to make money
- Responsibility to contracts to keep promises
- Responsibility to society to do 'good'

"The purpose of business is to provide the tings that make ordinary life easier"
- Robert C. Soloman (1983)

Cardinal Vincent Nichols developed 7 principles for good business from Aristotelian virtue
1) Human dignity - people should be treated as an end themselves
2) Common good - business should be looking for the greatest good in society
3) Solidarity - businesses should look out for others in the community and other small businesses
4) Subsidiarity - decisions should be made at the lowest possible level to be efficient/practical
5) Fraternity - businesses should be generous
6) Reciprocity - equal pay for equal work/ give and take should be equal as well charity
7) Sustainability- future generations should always be taken into consideration

UTILITARIAN VIEW - minimal government interference
- They shouldn't involve themselves or create laws unless absolutely necessary
- Logically, businesses will do what is right for the greatest number as it is likely to be most profitable
Is "the greatest good" finical rewards to a small number or society in general
How can there be workers rights when there isn't a belief in natural rights

KANTIAN VIEW
- Businesses have a duty, to be honest and to treat people as an ends themselves (2nd form of categorical imperative)
- This extends beyond just business and into society in general
There may be negative consequences of this, eg going out of business due to sticking to duty and creating more negative effects

FORD PINTO
- Compressed the schedule for the 1971 model release date from 3.5 years to 2
- Any design changes normally made before the production line would now have to be done during it
- The prototype cars failed the NHTSA safety standards of withstand a rear-end impact of 20mph without fuel loss
- Resulted in ruptured gas tanks and dangerous leaks
- Ford knew the car was a serious fire hazard, even in low speed collisions
- Estimated price for the needed safety improvements was only \$5-8 per vehicle
- Ford decided that the increase in cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design

UTILITARIAN VIEW
- The profit vs human life calculation that they made fits utilitarian views; General good of the organisation is more important than that of individuals
- The decision could've resulted in the companies cars being preferred over foreign, bringing in more profit to the company

KANTIAN VIEW
- They would disagree with Ford's decision
- People should never be treated as a means to an end (even if the end is profit)
- Profit was ultimately put over the safety of the customers

- When an employee informs the authorities of wrongdoing
- There may be an internal conflict for employees;Virtue of loyalty to their employer or duty the societal good
- Risk to their own job and life as well as those of other employees
- Common in cases of care homes

UTILITARIAN ETHICS VIEW
- A judgement of which actions (whether the whistle is blown or not) would cause the greatest good must be done
- Harm could be caused, something that may seem like a minor issue could get bigger and have major consequences

KANTIAN VIEW
- In that situation, employees have a duty of telling the truth and must ignore any consequences
- There could be negative consequences, eg other employees losing their jobs

BARCLAYS 2017
- It was discovered that Jes Staley, the chief executive, breached rules designed to protect the anonymity of whistle-blowers after a member of staff raised concerns
- Letters were anonymous sent to the head of the company about 2 high members
- Staley instructed the bank's information security team to go against protocol and unmask the author

EDWARD SNOWDEN
- He was a computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, he released confidential government documents about surveillance programmes
- His acts violated the Espionage Act of 1917 - Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act.
- He believed he had a duty "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them"

UTILITARIAN VIEW
- In both cases, whistleblowing was the action with the most good.
- BARCLAYS; protected the stigmatisation or firing the anonymous whistle-blower or any other future ones
- SNOWDEN: he ultimately did good for the millions who could've been put under surveillance

KANTIAN VIEW
- The employees have a duty to tell the truth, regardless of any legal action or jobless that may happen

Deepening of global connections have lead to transnational corporations
- Massively powerful - They have global markets, suppliers, consumers and workers
- They have few number of workers in developed countries that make massive profits and a large number of lower workers in undeveloped countries that earn very little
Many are more powerful than governments as they span many countries, so it is unclear which laws apply to their practices
- Loopholes can be exploited
- Essentially neo-colonial, having almost an empire that enslaves people in underpaid work
Damage to society and environment in the name of profit
- Provides a culture of mass consumption; cheap goods and foods that we desire

UTILITARIAN VIEW
- Classic view: depends on the greatest good which would be exploiting a small number in order to create the greatest good for everyone else
X Implies that harm is alright
- Preference view (eg Peter Singer): we cannot privilege ourselves, we wouldn't want to be exploited so we shouldn't allow others to be

KANTIAN VIEW
- The system is unethical as it exploits those in underdeveloped countries and shouldn't be bought into
The benefits that globalisation brings would be lost, many people wouldn't be able to afford an increase in product or food prices

PRIMARK 2013
- The Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh collapsed 2,515 injured people were rescued from the building
- 1,129 people died
- Considered the be the deadliest garment-factory incident in history as well as the deadliest accidental structural failure in modern history
- The building was illegally and dangerously built, Primark employed workers there because it would be cheaper than somewhere else

SPORTS DIRECT 2015
- Staff at the companies warehouses were effectively paid below minimum wage
- Salary was severely deducted for clocking in even a minute late
- They were also searched daily and harassed via tannoy to hit targets
- Union officers say the strict culture in the warehouse resulted in workers being afraid to speak out over low pay and conditions in fear of immediately being fired
- Workers were paid 20p below the statutory rate, which potentially saved the company millions of pounds a year

UTILITARIAN VIEW
- Preference would see the companies practices as unethical as those who put those decisions in place wouldn't want that to be the standard for everyone
- Classic would argue that the poor conditions aren't the greatest good as paying for better ones would benefit more people than the few who would've had the profits

KANTIAN VIEW
- Workers should never be treated as simply a means for profit, they must be treated as means themselves
- Eg proper working conditions and salaries

- Traditionally, ethical businesses are smaller scale/ viewed to be niche and the larger businesses are less ethical and profit more subsequently

- An ethical business may be best for profits
- They can charge higher prices as consumers know that they come from a good place and workers are being treated well
- They get a higher profile as a results (Eg Innocent Smoothies)
- Better business and social reputation elationships
- Trust and confidence in the company leads to loyalty in it too
- Could be seen as 'hypocritical window dressing'
- Showing themselves to be ethical when , behind the scenes, that's not the case

UTILITARIAN VIEW
- Best businesses transactions are ones that benefit not only the business/employer but the consumer/employee too
- An ethical business with higher prices benefits the business and employees, but not necessarily the consumers
KANTIAN ETHICS VIEW
- Categorical imperatives, morality is not only meant to guide our actions but it should be universal. Unethical business shouldn't be supported as we ourselvewouldn't want to be exploited
JOHN STUART MILL'S VIEW
- Harm principle, supporting unethical businesses doesn't harm ourselves but does harm others and therefore shouldn't be done

VOLKSWAGEN EMISSIONS TESTING
- The company created a major "low emission car" campaign in order to sell diesel cars in the US, seemingly making that company appear as more ethical
- However the cars that were advertised a low emission were found to have a "defeat device"/software in the engines that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results/ allowing the cars to appear to be low emission
- 11 million cars world-wide, including 8 million in Europe were fitted with the software
- VW was forced to recall millions of cars worldwide and set aside £4.8bn to cover costs, resulting in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years
- The EPA has the power to fine a company up to \$37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about \$18bn.

UTILITARIAN VIEW
- The decision ultimately did more reputation and financial harm than fitting real low emission engines would've done
- Fitting better engines would have been the more ethical approach as it would not only cause the greatest good for the company but the customers too

KANTIAN VIEW
- Profit was ultimately put over the condition of the environment
- Ethics is a duty, appearing to be ethical to get money from consumers isn't ethical at all

- Kantian ethics believe in the fair treatment of others which puts the concerns of consumers and employees at the forefront of ethics for businesses

- Utilitarianism believes in following whichever action creates the greatest good, which in business ethics can lead the exploitation of the minority for the happiness of the majority

- Meta - beyond, after, across
- Meta ethics is the study of the meaning of, and justification of, moral ideas
- Normative ethics: what is moral? (i.e. how we live)
- Meta ethics: what is morality? (i.e. underlying concepts)

- A search for a foundation for our moral beliefs, something solid that would make them in a way that is clear, objective and unmoving

MORAL ANTI-REALISM: the belief that moral propositions don't refer to objective features of the world at all, there are no moral facts

DAVID HUME
- cannot find any logical justification for ethics from empirical facts
ARISTOTELIAN SYLLOGISM
- All men are mortal (major premise)
- Socrates is a man (minor premise)
- Therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion, sum of
premises)
- Entirely based on fact - no provision for values; addition of values is opposed to logic
- No justification to use facts when speaking about values

LOGICAL STAGE SYLLOGISM ETHICS
A = B ✓ fact X fact
B = C ✓ fact X fact
A = C ✓ fact X value
Facts and values do not mix
- One is objective, one is subjective
- One is cognitive, one is non-cognitive
- Therefore, can only use facts or values together
Ethics mixes facts and values...problem
- Could use just values...but no cognitive facts to rely on

- 'Good' is a fact of nature, present in nature
- Good (value) = natural quality (fact)
- Bridges fact/value problem
- Beauty, truth, pleasure

- Ethical statements are cognitive
- Can be proven true or false
- Ethical issues are facts; verifable, falsifiable

Good = singular, spiritual being - a Form
- Forms are part of nature, but in a different dimension...broadly naturalistic
- Form of Good enlightens Forms of Truth, Justice, Beauty etc.
- Forms exist as rational necessity, so no doubt about existence
- Proven a priori

Pleasure is the measure, measured against a fixed benchmark
- Situation ethics: love
- Kantian ethics: duty
- Utilitarianism: utility
- Hedonism: pleasure

Hedonic Calculus created by Bentham

Most naturalists do not believe that a natural fact can be 'good', but that a natural fact 'equals good'
- To find 'good', one must find the natural fact
- By following the natural fact, one will find goo

✓Empirical with a scientific basis, so evidence is available to everyone.
✓Nature is universal so supports argument that morals can be universally known
✓Presents a solid guideline that ethics follow in every situation.

✓ F.H BRADLEY- Ethical statements contain facts - Some facts are true - Facts can be verified/falsified according to empirical observation of nature
- Therefore ethical statements can be verified/falsified

MOORE: to define an ethical judgements as a factual one is an error
o defining "goodness" as the greatest pleasure or the most happiness = naturalistic fallacy because definitions are not possible.
MOORE: "everything is what it is and not another thing"
o the good is the good — not pleasure or happiness— and it can't be broken down into pleasure, happiness or some other description.
o To claim moral statements can be verified or falsified = commit naturalistic fallacy.
o "Cannot infer from a description of how the world 'is' to how the world 'ought' to be"

MOORE: Open Question Argument -
o Hedonism: pleasure is not just 'good', but the - only source of good
o If so, this statement should always be true: "X is pleasant, but is it good?"
o If good = pleasure, we can re-write the sentence: "X is good, but is it good?"
o Becomes meaningless, and therefore good does not equal pleasure
It is impossible to agree on the definition of "good" and "evil"
Laws cannot be enforced in communities, because not everyone abides by the same definition of "good" and "bad"

PLATO/ARISTOTLE:
o 'Bad pleasure' makes sense as statement; 'bad good' cannot make sense

Can't use a non-moral premise to establish a moral conclusion
o you cannot go from observing pleasure to saying that goodness is pleasure, and likewise, a metaphysical premise like God cannot bring about a moral conclusion.

MOORE
Intuitionism: ethics are perceivable, but are not natural (i.e. not facts) - Moore, Ross, Prichard
- Yellow is a property, but is not a fact... can't be
verified/falsified
- Good is a property, but is not a fact... can't be
verified/falsified

Moore: 'good' exists externally to people, but we can perceive it (as yellow exists, and we can perceive it)
- Ethics are not subjective; objective ideas
- A well-ordered mind can correctly perceive
'good' (i.e. conscience)

Humans have intentionality to find the good
- Ironically...does not use intuition! Judgement and
reason
- Poor judgement and knowledge = poor
perception of 'good' (as poor eyesight prevents
perception of colours)

✓ Allows for objective moral values to be
identified
= proposes a form of moral realism.
o Not a question of dismissing the possibility of
any moral facts.

✓ Doesn't propose a subjective or emotive
approach to ethics but it does avoid the
problems of identifying ethics with a natural
property.

✓ We can recognise the wrongness of some
actions but may be difficult to specify exactly
why they are wrong.
o Interpret it through a moral sense, not a list of
moral definitions.

✓ Can identify a moral sense in the same way as
we might identify an aesthetic sense in art or
literature.

✓ Allows for moral duties and obligations, and so
satisfies a moral absolutist.

✓ Points to the existence of common consensus
on moral issues, such as the value of human life,
as evidence of a common intuition of morality.

✓ Idea of conscience as a moral guide.

✗ Moral intuitions seem to come from social
conditioning
o Differ between cultures so hard to see how
these can be a reliable guide to objective
ethical truths.

✗ J. L MACKIE - morality is not just about what a
person believes is intuitively right, but it is about
doing something about it.

✗ How can we be sure that our intuitions are
correct? Is it a gut feeling? Is it God's direction?
How reliable is experience as a guide?

✗ Intuition may be considered to be a meaningless
concept, since it is non-verifiable.

✗ HUME: we have a motivation for acting in certain
ways
o intuitionists may respond to this with the
suggestion that if we feel motivated towards a
particular action it is because we have an
innate desire to do it that goes beyond
reason

Logical positivism: tautology or verifiability = meaningful
- Are ethical statements meaningful?
- Not simply tautologous ('murder is wrong')
- Not verifiable - fact/value problem (Hume)

Ayer: ethical statements are meaningless
- No meaningful information about either objective
or subjective truth
- Ethical statements simply suggest emotional
feelings towards ideas i.e. "I like this" or "I don't
like this"
- Cannot have meaningful discussions - emotions
do not establish what is truly right/wrong

"KILLING-BOO!" THEORY
- Winston Barnes
- Ethical words (e.g. 'right', 'wrong') are not
meaningful
- No meaning = no reasonable argument (cf.
religion)
- Ethical 'discussions' are essentially shouts of
approval/disapproval - 'boo!' / 'hurrah!'
- No reference to truth, only feelings - cannot be
verified

✓ Allows complete freedom of action

✓ Part of being human is to express emotions
especially in moral situations

✓ Everyone can understand the theory and can
apply it, everyone's opinions are equally valid.

✓ Highlights the reason why moral disputes are
impossible to resolve decisively.

✓ Acknowledges and in some way values the
existence of moral diversity.

✓ It is true to say that moral opinions are often
formed on the basis of gaining other's approval
or avoiding their disapproval
o Eg in childhood

✓ History has many examples of emotivist
methods of expressing moral views, even if they
are not verifiable
o for example Hitler's condemnation of the
Jewish people and current extremist views
such as those proposed by the Westboro
Baptist Church.

✗ Ethics based on attitudes, upbringing and
feelings
o May lead to Emotivism to being 'simply
subjectivism.'

✗ JAMES RACHELS : moral judgments appeal to
reasoning not just expressions of feelings.

✗ Ethical statements are not usually judged
according to the response of the listener but on
the claims themselves.
o 'Abortion is wrong' makes a claim which can
be discussed and evaluated.
o Its power does not lie simply in how others
respond to it.

✗ If ethical claims were contingent on emotions,
they would change as emotions changed.
o They cannot be universal claims as the
emotions of the speakers would vary.

✗ Even when moral statements are carried by a
weight of public emotion, that does not provide
reason for them to be adopted, nor does it
make them right.

✗ How can we judge between two people's moral
opinions? What criteria is there - if any - for
judging the relative merits of a moral viewpoint.

✗ Emotions can unite people in a common moral
bond, but can also isolate groups and
individuals.

✗ As a logical positivist, Ayer's approach to ethical
language may be largely, proposes a method of
analysing the meaningfulness of language which
it was itself unable to satisfy.

Cum alio Scientia - knowledge applied to circumstances
- Technically an act, but known in a more
commonplace way as a phenomenon
- Many ways of understanding it
- Good v. evil
- God's influence
- Body v. soul / higher soul v. lower soul
- Internalised exertions of external power

Aquinas: conscience guides us towards natural law - rationalist morality

CONSCIENCE = "the faculty of reason making moral decisions"

Ratio (reason) allows us to work out what needs to be done, and how to do it
= Reason is a fundamental aspect of prudence

Moral principles given by God, moral actions are situational
- Synderesis = natural inclination to good over evil;
infallible
- Conscientia = process of making reasoned moral
judgements in particular circumstances; fallible

Cannot consent to an act in full if we are ignorant of all facts
- Vincible ignorance - we are to blame for our
ignorance; morally culpable
- Invincible ignorance - we are not to blame for
our ignorance; morally blameless
- Can regret, but not guilty

People who do evil deeds do so because their conscience is mistaken, pursued an apparent good instead of a real good

Conscience is not the voice of God
- Reason given by God, conscience is voice of
reason

Ratio (reason) allows us to work out what needs to be done, and how to do it
- Reason is a fundamental aspect of prudence
- The logical, rational, reasoning aspect of the
mind
- Processes all logical functions like a computer
- Theoretical, or practical (practica ratio)
- Exists in everyone, but needs developing

Ratio and prudence
- Prudence is a method of approaching practical
issues
- The better your ratio, the better you can 'process'
the method of prudence

Conscientia
- The practical application of synderesis to ethical
situations
- Ratio (navigator), prudence (map to follow), and
synderesis (compass) to create a value judgement
(conscience) of what we should do
- Not a 'thing', but an action - 'conscience'
describes the process of reaching the correct
decision
- Not the 'voice of God' which directly tells us what
is right and wrong (cf. Newman)

Conscience should always be followed because it's the best tool we've got
- other peole can lie or mislead us
- trust your own, can hide from it but can't lie to it

Understanding + judgement + good deliberation = prudence

Ratio + prudence = situational decision

Ratio + synderesis = conscientia

Conscientia + situational decision = moral decision

Guilt
- Logical necessity to follow conscience - it has
created the best judgement we can manage, so
we should follow it (it's all we have)
- Guilt comes from making a wrong ethical
decision
- Conscience can make mistakes - but when
should you feel guilty?

Reasons to feel guilt
- If you have no choice, can't consent to
actions...not to blame
- If you couldn't have known what you did was
wrong...not to blame
- If you did the best you could, but harm was
done...not to blame
- If you could have known what you did was
wrong...to blame

...but you may still feel regret

VINCIBLE IGNORANCE: could've known better but careless = blamable
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE: no way you could've know

✓ Shows how all humanity can reason right and
wrong yet still make the wrong decisions
- plus still maintain a degree of accountability

✓ His theory can be followed regardless of
religious beliefs
- therefore all people can be held morally
responsible

✓ Agrees with Piaget's idea that conscience is
manufactured from experiences and
conditioning
- Aquinas argued that children do not have a
fully formed conscience

✓ Clear set of authority/ guidance - supported by
the bible

✓ Highly influential view- supported by Catholic
Church

✗ Assumes good and evil are the same for
everyone

✗ Are humans really that rational?

✗Some acts can never be morally blameless: acts
may still break the law entitle punishment -
regardless of right intention/ following
conscience.

✗ What happens if you don't believe in God?

✗ Assumes no emotion is expressed

✗ Can conscience conflict with reason? Which one
do you follow in an ethical decision?

Approaching conscience differently to Aquinas
Not asking same questions:
- Aquinas: what is conscience & how do we use it
- Freud: why do we feel guilt & moral feelings?

Naturalistic approach: internalisation of parental authority
- Seem to come from within - super-ego
- Guilt from sinister urges (id) coupled with
'phantom' projection of father figure (super-ego)
within psyche

Conscience = guilt (synonyms)
- Guilt = tension between ego and superego
- Ego's feelings of inferiority, condemned by
superego

- Guilt = psychological issue to be 'fixed';
interested in origin of feelings in order to
conquer them

No care for blame or responsibility, or whether feelings of guilt are deserved
- 'Conscience' is dangerous and unhelpful; should
be ignored in decision making

✓ Importance of childhood in moral development

✓Role of parents

✓ Psychological argument isn't based in religion,
therefore, all people can be held morally
accountable

✗ Little empirical evidence:
- no evidence for primal horde, little for
collective unconscious & Oedipus complex

✗ Ockham's razor - simpler guilt theory likely to be
correct

✗ Not falsifiable - claim of denial
POPPER: much psychology (of the time) not
falsifiable, thus not scientific (e.g. super-ego)

✗ Poor sampling
- Self-selected, well-off, mainly female patients
- Male-orientated; male subjects, female objects
(passive victims)

✗ Ignores later life experiences
- Is conscience/ Morality unconscious - what
about freewill - do we not have more control
over it?

- Human's share a human nature
- Morality is a simple matter of following human
nature
- Humans are influenced by self-love (desire for
happiness for the self) and benevolence ( desire
for the happiness of others)

- Conscience is a gift from God, has the absolute
supreme and ultimate authority in ethical
judgements
- its role is to show the way towards good
- directs us towards benevolence and way from
self-love

Six stages of moral development that must be followed in sequence to fashion one's conscience

1. We are told what to do
2. We aim to seek approval
3. We aim to keep the law intact
4. We aim to care for others
5. We aim to respect universal principles
6. We aim to respect the demands of an individual
conscience

GOODS OF MARRIAGE
- procreation (primary)
- nurture of children, control of sexual urges

AS A SACRAMENT V COVENANT
- sacrament = highly religious, spiritual, life
changing, incorporating God
- covenant = binding promise, witnessed by Gd

EXTRAMARITAL SEX
- Categorically immoral (Leviticus 20:10)
- punishable by death
- generally aimed at women
- Jesus renounced punishment by death & blaming
of women
- modern church still sees it as a breach of
wedding vows, the man and woman blamed
equally

SEX WITHIN MARRIAGE
"they are no longer two but one flesh"
- Mark 10:18

SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE
"You should avoid sexual immorality"
- 1 Thessalonians 4
"It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion"
- 1 Corinthians 7:9


ADULTERY
"You shall not commit adultery"
- Romans 13:8
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her"
- Mark 10:11

RELATIONSHIPS
"Love thy neighbour as yourself"
- Romans 13:9
"Exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones"
- Romans 1:26

SEX
"Don't do this wicked thing"
- Genesis 19:7
"Men committed shameful acts with other men"
- Romans 1:27

Catholicism: language of 'abomination'
- Genesis 19:1-8 - Sodom & Gomorrah:
homosexuality
- Leviticus 18:22 - 'abomination' of male-male
sexuality
- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - 'malakoi' and 'arsenkoitai'
cannot enter God's kingdom
- Romans 1:18-32 - homosexuality against natural
order

- Homosexuality cannot give procreation, so sex
should not be allowed (cf. infertile couples?)
- Therefore, homosexuals should remain celibate;
may have relationships, but no sex

Liberal Church: Language of 'abomination'...?
- Genesis 19:1-8 - Sodom & Gomorrah: homosexual
and heterosexual rape
- Leviticus 18:22 - 'abomination'/'disaster' of lust
and prostitution of all kinds
- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - 'malakoi' (masturbators) and
'arsenkoitai' (male prostitutes) cannot enter God's
kingdom; critique of lust, rather than action?
- Romans 1:18-32 - homosexuality against 'natural
order', but so is eating pork and shellfish. -
Comparing Roman ways against Jewish ways;
cultural over religious.

- Therefore, homosexuals can have loving,
respectful, married relationships
- Church should support gay marriage (Alan
Wilson)

Companionate marriage
- Jeremy Taylor: "Christian charity is friendship"
- Marriage needn't be sexual - based on
friendship, sexuality can be part of that
friendship without procreation
- Good news for infertile couples & celibate
homosexual marriage

Traditional Catholicism:
- One man, one woman
- Marriage indissoluble (Mark 10:2-10); lifelong
fidelity
- But can annul a marriage, particularly if not
consummated
- Second marriage counts as bigamy; de facto
extramarital sex

Revised Christianity:
- Mark 10:12; 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 - Jesus seems to
allow divorce under certain circumstances, but
not remarriage
- Other interpretations: allow remarriage if
marriage has truly broken down (Matthew 5:31)
Jesus' teachings on divorce reinforce seriousness
of marriage, but should be taken on principle, not
on word

✗ CHURCH
- most churches are against it but the Scottish
Anglican Church allowed it
- other churches disagree

✗ NATURAL LAW
- disagree as they believe sex should only be used for procreation

✓ SITUATION ETHICS
- if it's the best thing for the couple, then acceptable

✗ KANTIAN ETHICS
- Kantian ethics not strictly against it, but Kant himself was

✓ UTILITARIANISM
- greatest good to the couple would be to let hem have a church wedding as it satisfied their religious need

✗ CHURCH
- defining against it as sex is meant to be just between a man and a woman, no third parties

✗ NATURAL LAW
- natural law is closely associated with Christianity, would disagree with it

✓ SITUATION ETHICS
- if that is what works best for the couple (e.g. they are both happy and consenting) then it will be fine

✗ KANTIAN ETHICS
- against open relationships as sex is only for female/male married couples
- not a universifiable rule

✓ UTILITARIANISM
- if it is the best situation then it's fine

✗ CHURCH
- sexual urges are to be shared with a partner, not self-indulgence

✗ NATURAL LAW
- no procreation happening, therefore is wrong

✓ SITUATION ETHICS
-if it is not harming anyone else and it help self-confidence etc then there's not an issue

✓✗ KANTIAN ETHICS
- using yourself as a means to an end but you yourself are the means and the end
- can be universalised

✓ UTILITARIANISM
- greatest good to yourself, no one else is involved or being harmed

✗ CHURCH
- absolutely against it, sex is only for married couples
- not in a relationship with that person

✗ NATURAL LAW
- sex is only for married couples
- violation of the precepts, sex is for procreation

✗ SITUATION ETHICS
- not necessarily the most loving action, better to just help than use the prostitute

✗ KANTIAN ETHICS
- sex is only for married couples, using someone as a means to an end

✗ UTILITARIANISM
- the greatest good would be to help the prostitute, not to take advantage of their situation
- Act: context matters
- Rule: almost always wrong