Moral Philosophy
Get Moral Philosophy essential facts below. View Videos or join the Moral Philosophy discussion. Add Moral Philosophy to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Moral Philosophy

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch[1] of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[2] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.[3]

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[2]

  3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.[2]

Defining ethics

The English word "ethics" is derived from the Ancient Greek word ?thikós (), meaning "relating to one's character", which itself comes from the root word êthos (?) meaning "character, moral nature".[4] This word was transferred into Latin as ethica and then into French as éthique, from which it was transferred into English.

Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'".[5] Richard William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[6] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."[7] Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[8]

The word ethics in English refers to several things.[9] It can refer to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy--a project that attempts to use reason to answer various kinds of ethical questions. As the English philosopher Bernard Williams writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy: "What makes an inquiry a philosophical one is reflective generality and a style of argument that claims to be rationally persuasive."[10] Williams describes the content of this area of inquiry as addressing the very broad question, "how one should live".[11] Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not particular to philosophy. As bioethicist Larry Churchill has written: "Ethics, understood as the capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values, is a generic human capacity."[12] Ethics can also be used to describe a particular person's own idiosyncratic principles or habits.[13] For example: "Joe has strange ethics."


Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophical ethics that asks how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.[14] An ethical question pertaining to a particular practical situation--such as, "Should I eat this particular piece of chocolate cake?"--cannot be a meta-ethical question (rather, this is an applied ethical question). A meta-ethical question is abstract and relates to a wide range of more specific practical questions. For example, "Is it ever possible to have secure knowledge of what is right and wrong?" is a meta-ethical question.


Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; this is quite akin to the thing called descriptive and non-descriptive. Non-cognitivism is the view that when we judge something as morally right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may, for example, be only expressing our emotional feelings about these things.[15] Cognitivism can then be seen as the claim that when we talk about right and wrong, we are talking about matters of fact.

The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuff referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe that ethics does not need a specific ontology since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known as an anti-realist position. Realists, on the other hand, must explain what kind of entities, properties or states are relevant for ethics, how they have value, and why they guide and motivate our actions.[16]

Moral skepticism

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism) is a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

Some proponents of moral skepticism include Pyrrho, Aenesidemus, Sextus Empiricus, David Hume, Max Stirner, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Moral skepticism divides into three subclasses: moral error theory (or moral nihilism), epistemological moral skepticism, and noncognitivism.[17] All three of these theories share the same conclusions, which are:

(a) we are never justified in believing that moral claims (claims of the form "state of affairs x is good," "action y is morally obligatory," etc.) are true and, even more so
(b) we never know that any moral claim is true.

However, each method arrives at (a) and (b) by different routes.

Moral error theory holds that we do not know that any moral claim is true because

(i) all moral claims are false,
(ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false, and
(iii) since we are not justified in believing any claim we have reason to deny, we are not justified in believing any moral claims.

Epistemological moral skepticism is a subclass of theory, the members of which include Pyrrhonian moral skepticism and dogmatic moral skepticism. All members of epistemological moral skepticism share two things: first, they acknowledge that we are unjustified in believing any moral claim, and second, they are agnostic on whether (i) is true (i.e. on whether all moral claims are false).

  • Pyrrhonian moral skepticism holds that the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim is that it is irrational for us to believe either that any moral claim is true or that any moral claim is false. Thus, in addition to being agnostic on whether (i) is true, Pyrrhonian moral skepticism denies (ii).
  • Dogmatic moral skepticism, on the other hand, affirms (ii) and cites (ii)'s truth as the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim.

Noncognitivism holds that we can never know that any moral claim is true because moral claims are incapable of being true or false (they are not truth-apt). Instead, moral claims are imperatives (e.g. "Don't steal babies!"), expressions of emotion (e.g. "stealing babies: Boo!"), or expressions of "pro-attitudes" ("I do not believe that babies should be stolen.")

Normative ethics



At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and were no longer concerned solely with rightness and wrongness, but were interested in many different kinds of moral status. During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined as meta-ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in part caused by an intense linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, and it is used to describe the ethics of Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers. Socrates (469-399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge bearing on human life was placed highest, while all other knowledge was secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the results of ignorance. If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and spiritual consequences of his or her actions, he or she would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.[19]:32-33

Aristotle (384-323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "virtuous". In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with virtue this person will do good and be content. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by doing wrong, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with virtue, which is only attainable by the practice of the virtues in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, were only made worthwhile and of benefit when employed in the practice of the virtues. The practice of the virtues is the surest path to happiness.

Aristotle asserted that the soul of man had three natures[]: body (physical/metabolism), animal (emotional/appetite), and rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise and care; emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges; and mental nature through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reason.



Contemporary virtue ethics

Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part as a response to G.E.M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist and deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground themselves in divine law. As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that either those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics, which does not necessitate universal laws as agents themselves are investigated for virtue or vice and held up to "universal standards", or that those who wish to be utilitarian or consequentialist ground their theories in religious conviction.[20]Alasdair MacIntyre, who wrote the book After Virtue, was a key contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics, although some claim that MacIntyre supports a relativistic account of virtue based on cultural norms, not objective standards.[20]Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to MacIntyre's relativism, among that of others, and responds to relativist objections to form an objective account in her work "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach".[21] However, Nussbaum's accusation of relativism appears to be a misreading. In Whose Justice, Whose Rationality?, MacIntyre's ambition of taking a rational path beyond relativism was quite clear when he stated "rival claims made by different traditions [...] are to be evaluated [...] without relativism" (p. 354) because indeed "rational debate between and rational choice among rival traditions is possible" (p. 352). Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century[22] blended the Eastern virtue ethics and the Western virtue ethics, with some modifications to suit the 21st Century, and formed a part of contemporary virtue ethics.[22]

One major trend in contemporary virtue ethics is the Modern Stoicism movement.

Intuitive ethics

Ethical intuitionism (also called moral intuitionism) is a family of views in moral epistemology (and, on some definitions, metaphysics). At minimum, ethical intuitionism is the thesis that our intuitive awareness of value, or intuitive knowledge of evaluative facts, forms the foundation of our ethical knowledge.

The view is at its core a foundationalism about moral knowledge: it is the view that some moral truths can be known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them from other truths one believes). Such an epistemological view implies that there are moral beliefs with propositional contents; so it implies cognitivism. As such, ethical intuitionism is to be contrasted with coherentist approaches to moral epistemology, such as those that depend on reflective equilibrium.[23]

Throughout the philosophical literature, the term "ethical intuitionism" is frequently used with significant variation in its sense. This article's focus on foundationalism reflects the core commitments of contemporary self-identified ethical intuitionists.[23][24]

Sufficiently broadly defined, ethical intuitionism can be taken to encompass cognitivist forms of moral sense theory.[25] It is usually furthermore taken as essential to ethical intuitionism that there be self-evident or a priori moral knowledge; this counts against considering moral sense theory to be a species of intuitionism. (see the Rational intuition versus moral sense section of this article for further discussion).

Ethical intuitionism was first clearly shown in use by the philosopher Francis Hutcheson. Later ethical intuitionists of influence and note include Henry Sidgwick, G.E. Moore, Harold Arthur Prichard, C.S. Lewis and, most influentially, Robert Audi.

Objections to ethical intuitionism include whether or not there are objective moral values- an assumption which the ethical system is based upon- the question of why many disagree over ethics if they are absolute, and whether Occam's razor cancels such a theory out entirely.



Cyrenaic hedonism

Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit of immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good.[19]:37


Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "...presented a sustained argument that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue."[26] He rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings. Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus, the summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example, eating one food too often makes a person lose a taste for it. Eating too much food at once leads to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there were an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state of death in the absence of an afterlife.[19]:37-38

State consequentialism

State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism,[27] is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the basic goods of a state.[27] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BC, as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare".[28] Unlike utilitarianism, which views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are ... order, material wealth, and increase in population".[29] During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.[30]

Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth ... if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically."[29] The Mohists believed that morality is based on "promoting the benefit of all under heaven and eliminating harm to all under heaven". In contrast to Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic or individualistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.[31]



The term "consequentialism" was coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick.[32] Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory.

The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.[33] In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address:

  • What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
  • Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
  • How are the consequences judged and who judges them?



Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill


Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that the morally correct action is the one that produces the best outcome for all people affected by the action. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.[37] Other noteworthy proponents of utilitarianism are neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, and moral philosopher Peter Singer, author of, amongst other works, Practical Ethics.

The major division within utilitarianism is between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, the principle of utility applies directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is the one that brings about the best results (or the least amount of bad results). In rule utilitarianism, the principle of utility determines the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people break promises at will and a world in which promises are binding. Right and wrong are the following or breaking of rules that are sanctioned by their utilitarian value.[38] A proposed "middle ground" between these two types is Two-level utilitarianism, where rules are applied in ordinary circumstances, but with an allowance to choose actions outside of such rules when unusual situations call for it.


Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek ?, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -, -logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill.[39] This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself. Under deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence,[40] if it follows the rule or moral law. According to the deontological view, people have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism).


Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[41][42] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (Pflicht).[43] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[44] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

Nothing in the world--indeed nothing even beyond the world--can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[44]

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.[44] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love".[45]

Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

  • Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
  • Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.

Kant argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e.g. "I will lie", then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it. In his essay, On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that "Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius). For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right [Rechtsquelle] ... All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth ... This is because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles."[46]

Divine command theory

Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the 'divine command theory', which is actually a cluster of related theories which essentially state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.[47] According to Ralph Cudworth, an English philosopher, William of Ockham, René Descartes, and eighteenth-century Calvinists all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.[48] The Divine Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly speaking "right", even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.

One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

Discourse ethics

Photograph of Jurgen Habermas, whose theory of discourse ethics was influenced by Kantian ethics

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has proposed a theory of discourse ethics that he claims is a descendant of Kantian ethics.[49] He proposes that action should be based on communication between those involved, in which their interests and intentions are discussed so they can be understood by all. Rejecting any form of coercion or manipulation, Habermas believes that agreement between the parties is crucial for a moral decision to be reached.[50] Like Kantian ethics, discourse ethics is a cognitive ethical theory, in that it supposes that truth and falsity can be attributed to ethical propositions. It also formulates a rule by which ethical actions can be determined and proposes that ethical actions should be universalisable, in a similar way to Kant's ethics.[51]

Habermas argues that his ethical theory is an improvement on Kant's ethics.[51] He rejects the dualistic framework of Kant's ethics. Kant distinguished between the phenomena world, which can be sensed and experienced by humans, and the noumena, or spiritual world, which is inaccessible to humans. This dichotomy was necessary for Kant because it could explain the autonomy of a human agent: although a human is bound in the phenomenal world, their actions are free in the intelligible world. For Habermas, morality arises from discourse, which is made necessary by their rationality and needs, rather than their freedom.[52]

Pragmatic ethics


Ethics of care

Care ethics contrasts with more well-known ethical models, such as consequentialist theories (e.g. utilitarianism) and deontological theories (e.g., Kantian ethics) in that it seeks to incorporate traditionally feminized virtues and values that--proponents of care ethics contend--are absent in such traditional models of ethics. These values include the importance of empathetic relationships and compassion.

Care-focused feminism is a branch of feminist thought, informed primarily by ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings.[54] This body of theory is critical of how caring is socially assigned to women, and consequently devalued. They write, "Care-focused feminists regard women's capacity for care as a human strength," that should be taught to and expected of men as well as women. Noddings proposes that ethical caring has the potential to be a more concrete evaluative model of moral dilemma than an ethic of justice.[55] Noddings' care-focused feminism requires practical application of relational ethics, predicated on an ethic of care.[56]

Role ethics

Role ethics is an ethical theory based on family roles.[57] Unlike virtue ethics, role ethics is not individualistic. Morality is derived from a person's relationship with their community.[58]Confucian ethics is an example of role ethics[57] though this is not straightforwardly uncontested.[59] Confucian roles center around the concept of filial piety or xiao, a respect for family members.[60] According to Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, "Confucian normativity is defined by living one's family roles to maximum effect." Morality is determined through a person's fulfillment of a role, such as that of a parent or a child. Confucian roles are not rational, and originate through the xin, or human emotions.[58]

Anarchist ethics

Anarchist ethics is an ethical theory based on the studies of anarchist thinkers. The biggest contributor to the anarchist ethics is the Russian zoologist, geographer, economist, and political activist Peter Kropotkin.

Starting from the premise that the goal of ethical philosophy should be to help humans adapt and thrive in evolutionary terms, Kropotkin's ethical framework uses biology and anthropology as a basis - in order to scientifically establish what will best enable a given social order to thrive biologically and socially - and advocates certain behavioural practices to enhance humanity's capacity for freedom and well-being, namely practices which emphasise solidarity, equality, and justice.

Kropotkin argues that ethics itself is evolutionary, and is inherited as a sort of a social instinct through cultural history, and by so, he rejects any religious and transcendental explanation of morality. The origin of ethical feeling in both animals and humans can be found, he claims, in the natural fact of "sociality" (mutualistic symbiosis), which humans can then combine with the instinct for justice (i.e. equality) and then with the practice of reason to construct a non-supernatural and anarchistic system of ethics.[61] Kropotkin suggests that the principle of equality at the core of anarchism is the same as the Golden rule:


Postmodern ethics


Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of the 'individual' itself. This was on the basis that personal identity was, in the most part, a social construction. As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "there is no outside-text/non-text" ("il n'y a pas de hors-texte" is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside the text"); at the same time, Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and eventually the absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer world.


Zygmunt Bauman says postmodernity is best described as modernity without illusion, the illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle. Postmodernity can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable.



Hoy concludes that


Applied ethics


Specific questions


A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions, there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration--in fact, no common assumptions of all participants--so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.

People, in general, are more comfortable with dichotomies (two opposites). However, in ethics, the issues are most often multifaceted and the best-proposed actions address many different areas concurrently. In ethical decisions, the answer is almost never a "yes or no", "right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.

And it has not only been shown that people consider the character of the moral agent (i.e. a principle implied in virtue ethics), the deed of the action (i.e. a principle implied in deontology), and the consequences of the action (i.e. a principle implied in utilitarianism) affect moral judgments, but moreover that the effect of each of these three components depends on the value of each other component.[63]

Particular fields of application



Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that affect basic biology and future humans. These developments include cloning, gene therapy, human genetic engineering, astroethics and life in space,[64] and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA and proteins, e.g. "three parent baby, where baby is born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor.[65] Correspondingly, new bioethics also need to address life at its core. For example, biotic ethics value organic gene/protein life itself and seek to propagate it.[66] With such life-centered principles, ethics may secure a cosmological future for life.[67]

Business ethics

Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment, including fields like medical ethics. Business ethics represents the practices that any individual or group exhibits within an organization that can negatively or positively affect the businesses core values. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations.

Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflect the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."[68] Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control.[69] The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.[70][71]

Machine ethics


Military ethics

Military ethics are concerned with questions regarding the application of force and the ethos of the soldier and are often understood as applied professional ethics.[73]Just war theory is generally seen to set the background terms of military ethics. However individual countries and traditions have different fields of attention.[74]

Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others:

  1. what, if any, should be the laws of war.
  2. justification for the initiation of military force.
  3. decisions about who may be targeted in warfare.
  5. standards for handling military prisoners.
  6. methods of dealing with violations of the laws of war.

Political ethics


Public sector ethics


Publication ethics

Publication ethics is the set of principles that guide the writing and publishing process for all professional publications. To follow these principles, authors must verify that the publication does not contain plagiarism or publication bias.[77] As a way to avoid misconduct in research these principles can also apply to experiments that are referenced or analyzed in publications by ensuring the data is recorded honestly and accurately.[78]

Plagiarism is the failure to give credit to another author's work or ideas, when it is used in the publication.[79] It is the obligation of the editor of the journal to ensure the article does not contain any plagiarism before it is published.[80] If a publication that has already been published is proven to contain plagiarism, the editor of the journal can retract the article.[81]

Publication bias occurs when the publication is one-sided or "prejudiced against results".[82] In best practice, an author should try to include information from all parties involved, or affected by the topic. If an author is prejudiced against certain results, than it can "lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn".[83]

Misconduct in research can occur when an experimenter falsifies results.[84] Falsely recorded information occurs when the researcher "fakes" information or data, which was not used when conducting the actual experiment.[84] By faking the data, the researcher can alter the results from the experiment to better fit the hypothesis they originally predicted. When conducting medical research, it is important to honor the healthcare rights of a patient by protecting their anonymity in the publication.[77]Respect for autonomy is the principle that decision-making should allow individuals to be autonomous; they should be able to make decisions that apply to their own lives. This means that individuals should have control of their lives. Justice is the principle that decision-makers must focus on actions that are fair to those affected. Ethical decisions need to be consistent with the ethical theory. There are cases where the management has made decisions that seem to be unfair to the employees, shareholders, and other stakeholders (Solomon, 1992, pp49). Such decisions are unethical.

Relational ethics

Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care.[85]:62-63 They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and autoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and "...between researchers and the communities in which they live and work." (Ellis, 2007, p. 4).[86] Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on intimate others that have died and developing friendships with their participants.[87][88] Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of contextual therapy.

Animal ethics

Animal ethics is a term used in academia to describe human-animal relationships and how animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice.

Moral psychology

Moral psychology is a field of study that began as an issue in philosophy and that is now properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[89] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology (and philosophy of mind).[90] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.[91]

Evolutionary ethics


Descriptive ethics

Descriptive ethics is on the less philosophical end of the spectrum since it seeks to gather particular information about how people live and draw general conclusions based on observed patterns. Abstract and theoretical questions that are more clearly philosophical--such as, "Is ethical knowledge possible?"--are not central to descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics offers a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science rather than a humanity. Its examination of ethics doesn't start with a preconceived theory but rather investigates observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or of conduct. The study of descriptive ethics may include examinations of the following:

  • Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics--and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.
  • Practices in arbitration and law, e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right", i.e., putting priorities on two things that are both right, but that must be traded off carefully in each situation.

By country

United States

In the US, scientific knowledge has a "special status" as the basis for ethics.[94]

See also


  1. ^ Verst, Ludger Kampmann, Susanne Eilers, Franz-Josef (July 27, 2015). Die Literaturrundschau. Communicatio Socialis. OCLC 914511982.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b c Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Ethics"
  3. ^ Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Entry on Axiology.
  4. ^ An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. 1889.
  5. ^ Kidder, Rushworth (2003). How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Harper Collins. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-688-17590-0.
  6. ^ Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. NP. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.
  8. ^ Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. np. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.
  9. ^ "Definition of ethic by Merriam Webster". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2015.
  10. ^ Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p. 2.
  11. ^ Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. p. 1.
  12. ^ "Are We Professionals? A Critical Look at the Social Role of Bioethicists". Daedalus. 1999. pp. 253-274.
  13. ^ David Tanguay (January 24, 2014). "Buddha and Socrates share Common ground". Soul of Wit. Archived from the original on July 22, 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  14. ^ a b c "What is ethics?". BBC. Archived from the original on October 28, 2013. Retrieved 2014.
  15. ^ http://www.iep.utm.edu/non-cogn/
  16. ^ Miller, C (2009). "The Conditions of Moral Realism". The Journal of Philosophical Research. 34: 123-155. doi:10.5840/jpr_2009_5.
  17. ^ Moral Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  18. ^ Cavalier, Robert. "Meta-ethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics". Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Archived from the original on November 12, 2013. Retrieved 2014.
  19. ^ a b c d e William S. Sahakian; Mabel Lewis Sahakian (1966). Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
  20. ^ a b Professor Michiel S.S. De De Vries; Professor Pan Suk Kim (2011). Value and Virtue in Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-230-35709-9.
  21. ^ Nussbaum, Martha (1987). Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach.
  23. ^ a b Shafer-Landau & Cuneo (2012), p. 385
  24. ^ Stratton-Lake (2014) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/
  25. ^ Stratton-Lake (2013), p. 337
  26. ^ Ancient Ethical Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  27. ^ a b Ivanhoe, P.J.; Van Norden, Bryan William (2005). Readings in classical Chinese philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-87220-780-6. he advocated a form of state consequentialism, which sought to maximize three basic goods: the wealth, order, and population of the state
  29. ^ a b Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press. p. 761. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.
  30. ^ Van Norden, Bryan W. (2011). Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-60384-468-0.
  31. ^ Jay L. Garfield; William Edelglass (2011). The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-19-532899-8. The goods that serve as criteria of morality are collective or public, in contrast, for instance, to individual happiness or well-being
  32. ^ Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy. 33 (124): 1-19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943.
  33. ^ Mackie, J.L. (1990) [1977]. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-013558-9.
  34. ^ Baqgini, Julian; Fosl, Peter S. (2007). The Ethics Toolkit: A Compendium of Ethical Concepts and Methods. Malden: Blackwell. pp. 57-58. ISBN 978-1-4051-3230-5.
  35. ^ Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4021-6393-7.
  36. ^ Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism (Project Gutenberg online edition)
  37. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875163-2.
  38. ^ "Utilitarian Theories". Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. 1996. Retrieved 2017.
  39. ^ Stanford.edu
  43. ^ Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.), Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, 1889 [Preface and Introduction to Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre, 1797]. Abbott's deontology translates Kant's Pflichtenlehre.
  44. ^ a b c Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical', Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
  45. ^ Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (ed.). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project Gutenberg. p. 23.
  46. ^ "Über ein vermeintes Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen", Berlinische Blätter 1 (1797), 301-314; edited in: Werke in zwölf Bänden, vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main (1977), zeno.org/nid/20009192123.
  47. ^ Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory". Noûs, Vol. 17, No. 3: 387-407.
  48. ^ Cudworth, Ralph. 1731. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. Reprinted in 1996. Sarah Hutton (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. ^ Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 53
  50. ^ Collin 2007, p. 78
  51. ^ a b Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 54
  52. ^ Payrow Shabani 2003, pp. 55-56
  53. ^ Lafollette, Hugh, ed. (2000). The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell Philosophy Guides (1 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.
  54. ^ Tong, Rosemarie; Williams, Nancy (May 4, 2009). "Feminist Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab. Retrieved 2017.
  55. ^ Noddings, Nel: Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, pp. 3-4. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
  56. ^ Noddings, Nel: Women and Evil, p. 222. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989.
  57. ^ a b Roger T. Ames (2011). Confucian Role Ethics: A Vocabulary. University of Hawai?i Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-3576-7.
  58. ^ a b Chris Fraser; Dan Robins; Timothy O'Leary (2011). Ethics in Early China: An Anthology. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 17-35. ISBN 978-988-8028-93-1.
  59. ^ Sim, May, 2015, "Why Confucius' Ethics is a Virtue Ethics", in Besser-Jones and Slote (2015), pp. 63-76
  60. ^ Wonsuk Chang; Leah Kalmanson (2010). Confucianism in Context: Classic Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, East Asia and Beyond. SUNY Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-4384-3191-8.
  61. ^ "Ethics: Origin and Development" by Pëtr Kropotkin
  62. ^ "Anarchist morality", chapter VI, Pëtr Kropotkin
  63. ^ Dublkevic, Sattler, Racine (2018). "Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment". PLOS ONE. 13 (10): e0206750. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1304631D. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204631. PMC 6166963. PMID 30273370.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  64. ^ "Astroethics". Archived from the original on October 23, 2013. Retrieved 2005.
  65. ^ Freemont, P.F.; Kitney, R.I. (2012). Synthetic Biology. New Jersey: World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-84816-862-6.
  66. ^ Mautner, Michael N. (2009). "Life-centered ethics, and the human future in space" (PDF). Bioethics. 23 (8): 433-440. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00688.x. PMID 19077128.
  67. ^ Mautner, Michael N. (2000). Seeding the Universe with Life: Securing Our Cosmological Future (PDF). Washington, DC. ISBN 978-0-476-00330-9.
  68. ^ Smith, A (1776/1952). An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, p. 55.
  70. ^ Jones, C.; Parker, M.; et al. (2005). For Business Ethics: A Critical Text. London: Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-415-31135-9.
  71. ^ ferrell, o.c (2015). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. ISBN 978-1-305-50084-6.
  72. ^ Wallach, Wendell; Allen, Colin (2008). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537404-9.
  73. ^ Cook, Martin L.; Syse, Henrik (2010). "What Should We Mean by 'Military Ethics'?". Journal of Military Ethics. 9 (2). p. 122.
  74. ^ Goffi, Emmanuel (2011). Les Armée Françaises Face à la Morale [The French Army Facing Morale] (in French). France: L'Harmattan. ISBN 978-2-296-54249-5.
  75. ^ Thompson, Dennis F. "Political Ethics". International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh LaFollette (Blackwell Publishing, 2012).
  76. ^ See, for example, work of Institute for Local Government, at www.ca-ilg.org/trust.
  77. ^ a b Morton, Neil (October 2009). "Publication ethics" (PDF). Pediatric Anesthesia. 19 (10): 1011-1013. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03086.x. PMID 19619189.
  78. ^ Wager, E; Fiack, S; Graf, C; Robinson, A; Rowlands, I (March 31, 2009). "Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey". Journal of Medical Ethics. 35 (6): 348-353. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028324. PMID 19482976.
  79. ^ Scollon, Ron (June 1999). "Plagiarism". Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 9 (1-2): 188-190. doi:10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.188. JSTOR 43102462.
  80. ^ Wager, Elizabeth; Williams, Peter (September 2011). "Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988--2008". Journal of Medical Ethics. 37 (9): 567-570. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964. JSTOR 23034717. PMID 21486985.
  81. ^ Sanjeev, Handa (2008). "Plagiarism and publication ethics: Dos and don'ts". Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology. 74 (4): 301-303. doi:10.4103/0378-6323.42882.
  82. ^ Sigelman, Lee (2000). "Publication Bias Reconsidered". Political Analysis. 8 (2): 201-210. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029813. JSTOR 25791607.
  83. ^ Peters, Jamie L.; Sutton, Alex J.; Jones, David R.; Abrams, Keith R.; Rushton, Lesley; Moreno, Santiago G. (July 2010). "Assessing publication bias in meta-analysis in the presence of between-study heterogeneity". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society). 173 (3): 575-591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2009.00629.x.
  84. ^ a b Smith, Richard (July 26, 1997). "Misconduct in Research: Editors Respond: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Is Formed". British Medical Journal. 315 (7102): 201-202. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7102.201. JSTOR 25175246. PMC 2127155. PMID 9253258.
  85. ^ Carol Gilligan (2009). In a Different Voice. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03761-8.
  86. ^ Ellis, C (2007). "Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others". Qualitative Inquiry. 13: 3-29. CiteSeerX doi:10.1177/1077800406294947.
  91. ^ See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
  92. ^ Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary Ethics". Archived from the original on October 7, 2013. Retrieved 2010.
  93. ^ Hary Gunarto, Ethical Issues in Cyberspace and IT Society, Symposium on Whither The Age of Uncertainty, APU Univ., paper, Jan. 2003
  94. ^ Tolman, Deborah & Diamond, Lisa. (2013). Sexuality theory: A review, a revision, and a recommendation.


Further reading

External links




Music Scenes