CHAPTER ONE

THE MEANING OF CIVICS, ETHICS AND MORALITY

The main idea of this lesson is to provide background information about civic and ethical
education in the life of the society. Actually, it also helps you in studying other subsequent
lessons and units. This part is introductory and hence elements like definition and meaning of
civics are treated here. Most importantly, spending enough time on each topic thoroughly is very
important. After understanding the topic, you would do better each exercise and activity.

Civics and Ethics or civic and ethical education is an emerging field of the study in the field of
science. After 1990s, the official launching of democracy and democratization process among
countries which were, hitherto ruled under dictatorial regimes across nearly half part of the world
revived the significance of civics or civic Education. In some country it is included in the official
curriculums as citizenship Education. In some countries it has been named under-citizenship for
Democracy. And in most cases it has retained the name of Civics or civic Education. In our
country Civics and Ethics or civic and Ethical Education is the title given to it. Despite variations
in nomenclature, there have been foundational principles and values that are treated under the
discipline. The issue of constitutional democracy and Human Rights has been the core values
and issues are the common denominator across countries. The emphasis on the rights and duties
of citizens however varies. In some countries the focus has been on the civil and political rights
of citizens and the reciprocal relationship among citizens, between citizens and states. In country
such as Ethiopia the scope and dimensions of citizenship is comprehensive covering wide range
of issues and domains of society.

A. What is civics?

Civics is actually the social science; however in certain respects it forms a part of political
science. Civics is old subject and previously it was taught along with history and political
science. It was introduced as a separate subject only in the 19th C. In the modern times with the
whole world becoming a single unit, the need for world fraternity has enormously increased and
so the civics has assumed greater importance in the field of study.
The word civics is derived from the Latin word civis which means a citizen. Another Latin word
Civitas means .city state. Both these words have given the birth of social science known as
civics.

The word citizen is to mean a person who is a member of a particular country by birth or
Naturalization (getting a right of citizen ship through legal process). This is to say that a citizen
refers to a person who has certain rights and privileges, and who is expected to render (provide)
services and duty expected from him / her by being a member of citizen of a given country. This
implies the state of being the ownership of certain rights and duties.

The concept has been defined by many authorities in many ways as follows

 Civics is a social science that studies about citizenship

 Civics is the more or less useful branch of human Knowledge, which deals with
everything (social, intellectual, economical, political and even religious aspects)
pertaining to citizenship, past, present and future, local national, international.
 Civics is the study of institutions, habits and spirits by means of which a man or woman
may fulfill the duties and receive the benefits of membership in political community
 Civics is the study of institutions, habits and spirits by means of which a man or woman
may fulfill the duties and receive the benefits of membership in political community.
 It is a science which studies the theory and practice of free and open democratic society.
 Civics is that branch of human Knowledge which deals with rights and duties of man
living as a member of a group of people politically organized."
 Still other defines it a science that studies international socio- economic and political
conditions, etc.

Some of people also defined it as a science that studies the purposes of government, the nature of
the law, and why private behavior affects the public order and the political system. It is an
intensive study and understanding of political institutions, like the executive, judicially and the
court.

Civics as one field of study has its own scope. The scope of civics and ethical studies is
concerned with the reciprocal relationships of rights and duties that are established between
citizens and the State, (vertical relation) and among citizens themselves (horizontal relation) with
regard to political, cultural, social, economical, environmental and developmental affairs of the
country or the society.

Generally, as a field of study, civics can be defined as a branch of social science which studies
about "the right and duties of citizens" the term rights refers to privilege claimed or enjoyed by
citizens. Right enables citizens to use their mental and physical faculties provide with them.

On the Other hand duties indicate the obligation that has to be fulfilled by the citizen. Shortly, it
is responsibility discharged by citizens. Both the terms Duty and Right are very interrelated
because the citizens to have certain right they are required to discharge certain duties. As a whole
the purpose of education is to create active citizens who could directly participate in political,
economic and social and cultural activities in a given society. Civics is a valid science which
studies the right and duties of citizen in relation to civil government in the modern society. It is
the study of self-government.

A system of democracy requires the participation of citizens. When citizens participate in their
own affairs they are exercising what is called self- governance. That is one aspect of democracy.
Thus, in democracy, citizens participate in their own social, political and economic affairs. They
do not become passive and simply accept the action of others. Such participation contributes for
their common good as well as the private good of the majority of individuals. In this way, the
decision of the majority is maintained, yet the views of the minority are also respected.
Therefore, as it enables you to participate, civic education is education for self- governance,
participation and tolerance in the system of democracy.

Civic education is education for developing responsible way of thinking, believing and acting. It
helps you deal with differences through tolerance, respect and mutual understanding. It is also a
tool for good citizenship, community service and personal responsibility. Civic education is an
important component of your over all school education.

B. What is Ethics?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand people’s moral beliefs and actions
(these modules use the terms, ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’; ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’ interchangeably,
although traditionally ‘ethics’ described the process of thinking about people’s morality). Ethics,
or moral philosophy, considers theories about what human beings are capable of doing,
alongside accounts of what they ought to do if they are to live an ethically good life. Ethics also
explores the meaning and the ranking of different ethical values, such as honesty, autonomy,
equality and justice, and it considers ethical quandaries that human beings face in the course of
living their own independent but, also, socially interdependent lives.

Ethics or moral philosophy: considers theories about what human beings are capable of doing,
alongside accounts of what they ought to do if they are to live an ethically good life. Ethics may
share common ground with the law, religious belief, popular opinion, professional codes and the
dictates of authority figures, but it is also broader than all of these and offers a set of tools and
values against which their appropriateness can be evaluated.

Invariably all ethical questions involve a decision about what one should do in a specific
instance. Notice the word should. Ethical questions are not concerned with what one would do
(an essentially psychological concern) but what one ought to do. Judgments about such decisions
are generally expressed with words like right and wrong, should and ought, or obligation and
duty.

Occasionally the term ethics is used interchangeably with morals. Business or medical ethics, for
example, is generally synonymous with morals. Although this is acceptable, a precise usage
would apply the term’s morals and moral to the conduct itself, while the terms ethics and ethical
would refer to the study of moral conduct or to the code that one follows. Thus, the specific act
of telling the caller you were home could be described as moral or immoral. But what makes any
act moral or immoral, right or wrong fall within the province of ethics.

When we speak of moral problems then, we generally refer to specific problems, such as “Is
lying ever right?” or “Is stealing always wrong?” in contrast, we can look at ethical problems as
being more general and theoretical. Thus, “what makes any act, such as lying or stealing, right or
wrong?” and “what makes any entity good?” are ethical problems. In short, morality refers to the
degree to which an action conforms to a standard or norm of human conduct. Ethics refers to the
philosophical study of values and of what constitute good and bad human conduct.
In dealing with human conduct from the perspective of obligation and value, ethics investigates a
variety of related concerns. Among them are whether a standard of morality exists that applies to
all people at all times everywhere, the precise nature of moral responsibility, the conditions
under which one is morally accountable or responsible, and the proper end of law. When
ethicists use word like “good” or “right” to describe a person or action they generally means that
the person or action conforms to some standard. A good person or action has certain desirable
qualities. Ethicists often disagree about the nature of those standards and desirable qualities and
follow different paths in establishing standards and discovering which qualities are desirable. For
purposes of understanding, though, we can view ethics as divided into two fields; normative
ethics and non-normative ethics.

Generally, Ethics is:

1. The critical examination and evaluation of what is good, evil, right and wrong in human
conduct (Guy, 2001).
2. A specific study of principles, values and guidelines of a particular group or organization
(Guy, 2001).
3. Ethics is the study of goodness, right action and moral responsibility, it asks what choices
and ends we ought to pursue and what moral principles should govern our pursuits and
choices (Madden, 2000).

C. What is Morality?

Of course, morality is a complex concept. Though it is one of most frequently used terms, it can
mean different things to different people. Morality is a commonly used word in most cultures.
Some Scholars argued that if we do not know what morality is we cannot teach it. In crucial
ways we do not know what morality is. Yet we must teach it because it is of prime importance
and must be learned. Moreover, teaching must not be brainwashing; It must be moral. So, in
order to understand Moral and Civics Education, the term “moral” needs to be understood

Morality can be viewed from different perspectives and let us start with the simple definition of
the word itself. Morality from a dictionary definition (from Latin moralitas “manner, character,
proper behavior”) refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and
wrong – also referred to as “good and evil”. It can be used to mean the generally accepted code
of conduct in a society, or within a subgroup of society. It relates to values expressed as: a matter
of individual choice, those values to which we ought to aspire and those values shared within a
culture, religious, secular, or philosophical community. This definition is clear when morality is
spelt out and agreed upon by others. However, it becomes ambiguous when defined by different
ethnic groups, especially in the multicultural society, like Ethiopians.

Morality has been a topic of discussion for a very long time. According to Socrates “We are
discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live” when issues of morality are discussed.

Socrates is rightly asserted that morality is not a small matter. In fact, moral philosophy is the
attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of
us. In Socrates’ words it’s “how we ought to live”. Living in a multicultural Ethiopia, how we
ought to live can be very complicated because of the diversity of culture that is vast and unique.

Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason that is, to do what there
are the best reasons for doing while giving equal weight to the interest of each individual who
will be affected by one’s conduct. It is important that in a countries like Ethiopia, morality is
shared as a common goal to ensure harmony and integrity.

Terms such as morality and ethics are often used interchangeably in everyday speech as referring
to justified or proper conduct. But ethics is usually associated with a certain conduct within a
profession, for example, the code of ethics for the teaching profession. Morality is a more
general term referring to the character of individuals and community. In other words, Morality is
used to refer to what we would call moral conduct while ethics is used to refer to the formal
study of moral conduct. It can be claimed that morality is related to praxis, but ethics is related to
theory.

Morality is:
1. Those principles and values that actually guide, for better or worse, an individual’s personal
conduct (Guy, 2001)
 2. Morality is the informal system of rational beings by which they govern their behavior in
order to lesson harm or evil and do good, this system, although informal, enjoys amazing
agreement across time and cultures concerning moral rules, moral ideas and moral virtues
(Madden, 2000)

Morality, whatever else may be said about it, is about things over which we have control that
lead to “bettering human life”. It is different in every society, and is a convenient term for
socially approved habits.

Ethics and Law

As against morals and ethics, laws are norms, formally approved by state, power or national or
international political bodies. Many laws are instituted in order to promote well-being, resolve
conflicts of interest, and promote social harmony. However, there are several reasons why ethics
is not law. First, some actions that are illegal may not be unethical. Speeding is illegal, but one
might have an ethical obligation to break the speed limit in order to transport someone to a
hospital in an emergency. Second, some actions that are unethical may not be illegal. Most
people would agree that lying is unethical but lying is only illegal under certain conditions, e.g.
lying on an income tax return, lying when giving sworn testimony, etc. Third, laws can be
unethical or immoral. The United States had laws permitting slavery in the 1800s but most
people today would say that those laws were unethical or immoral. Although we have moral and
ethical obligations to obey the law, civil disobedience can be justified when immoral or unethical
laws exist.

Since we can appeal to morality and ethics to justify or criticize laws, many writers maintain that
the main function of a legal system is to enforce a society’s moral and ethical consensus. Fourth,
we use different kinds of mechanisms to express, teach, inculcate, and enforce laws and ethics.
Laws are expressed publicly in statutes, penal codes, court rulings, government regulations, and
so forth. Although ethics and morals are sometimes made explicit in religious texts, professional
codes of conduct, or philosophical writings, many ethical and moral standards are implicit.
Finally, we use the coercive power of government to enforce laws. People who break certain
laws can be fined, imprisoned, or executed. People who violate ethical or moral standards do not
face these kinds of punishments unless their actions also violate laws. Often we “punish” people
who disobey moral or ethical obligations by simply expressing our disapproval or by
condemning the behavior.

THE SOURCE AND INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURE OF MORAL AND CIVIC

EDUCATION

Generally Moral and Civics education have three sources. These are theoretical source,
documentary source and social sources.
A. Theoretical sources:
All social science deals with the various aspects of human life. Civics is a social science and its
correlation is more to other branches of social science such as political science, philosophy,
sociology, etc.
Philosophy: is a branch of social science that is concerned with ethical standards and the pursuit
of wisdom. It considered as mother of all sciences.

Political science: deals with political theories and practices. It focuses on politics, state,
government, democracy, constitution, etc. The close correlation between political science and
ethics is reflected in Plato‟s observation, “Good citizens can be formed in a good state.” Hegel
considers the state to be the highest expression of morality. “Politics is nothing but ethics at large
…. Ethical theory is incomplete without political theory, become man is an associated creature
and cannot live fully in isolation. Political theory is idle without ethical theory because its study
and its results depend fundamentally upon our scheme of moral values, our conceptions of right
and wrong”.
Sociology: deals with the various social relationships of man. Civic deals on civic aspects of the
social life of man. We find that sociology deals with all the aspects of man’s life and here we
mention that civics deals only with the civic aspect of the social life of man. Civics teaches those
(human beings) about their rights and duties as good citizens. It also tells them about the ways
and means through which political and social developments, may be make. It ay be said that
civics deals man only as a citizen while sociology studies man as a social being. Teaching of
sociology and civics is therefore correlated and this correlation is quite natural and beneficial.

History: it is said “History without civics has no fruit; Civics without history has no root”
History studies about the past whereas civics studies about contemporary facts. But progress in
present is impossible unless we have ideas of the past. With the knowledge of History, a student
of civics can know the attitude of the rulers in the past towards citizens. He can also know about
the results of the attitude of the rulers. In the light of the knowledge acquired, the student of
civics can utilize the present day situations and bring about a good social and civic order.
Patriotism is an integral part of good citizenship. This quality can be developed in the students
through the examples of great men of history.
B. Documentary Sources
These constitute national, regional and international documents. Documents like Universal
Declarations on Human Rights (UDHR), Constitutions, parliamentary proceedings, national
legislations, the international covenant on civil and political rights ( ICCPR),the international
covenant on economic, social and cultural rights(ICESCR), etc. are used as to enrich the
knowledge of civic education. Yet, civics enjoys an independent status and other social sciences
take help from it.
C. Societal Source
Besides theoretical and documentary sources, there are also societal sources. These societal
sources are institutionalized and non- institutionalized type. It is not only formal classes that
knowledge, attitude and skills are required. It is also possible to obtain civic and ethical values,
principles, norms from other sources. Some of these societal sources are:

 Families

 Exemplary citizens (as role models)

 Libraries

 Schools (as agents of socialization)

 Professional associations

 Churches, mosques, and others

 Labor unions

 Communication Medias, etc.

The Importance/Goal of Moral and Civic Education

Civic education is a discipline that deals with virtue traits rooted in values of respect and culture
of tolerance to make individuals responsible and efficient member of their community. It teaches
the values and sense of commitment that define an active and principled citizen, how to make
responsible decisions, solve problems, care about others, contribute to society, and be tolerant
and respectful of diversity.

In higher educational institutions of Ethiopia, civics and ethics/moral education is given with the
aim of educating students about democratic culture, ethical values and principles, supremacy of
constitution, the rule of law, rights and duties of citizens. These elements are imperative in the
process of producing self-confident citizens who decides on issues based on reason. It is also
aimed at creating a generation who has the capability to shoulder family and national
responsibility. Ethics has also become important in education, because education is a
fundamental process of human life. Therefore, ethics is very important subject in education. We
can easily reach all knowledge by technology. In education using technology reveals some
ethical problems such as plagiarism. In order to understand the importance of ethics, ethics
should be placed as a course in educational system. Generally, the necessity of delivering the
course emanates from:

1) The need to instill citizens about their rights and duties: The two phrases rights and duties
co-exist with each other (they are termed as the two sides of the same coin) that regulate the
values and behavioral patterns of an individual.

2) The Need for Participant Political Culture: According to the International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences (1961) political culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments which
give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and
rules that govern behavior in the political system. Taylor (1999) describes political culture as the
norms of conduct both of and between the various political actors operating in society, together
with the concomitant expectations and understandings of the rights and responsibilities of
citizens, representatives, public servants and so on. Political culture shapes what people expect of
their political system, what they see as possibilities for their own action, and what rights and
responsibilities the various actors are perceived to have. Generally, political culture defines the
roles which an individual may play in the political process.

3) The Need for Relevant Knowledge, Skills and Positive Attitudes: Relevant knowledge is a
type of knowledge which is useful in dealing with a particular problem at a period of time.
However, knowledge would remain inert knowledge unless it is functional or put into practice to
achieve a certain goal. Still knowledge would remain infirm if the person is not equipped with
right attitudes and requisite skills which are basic to enable him/her perform his/her role as a
credible member of a society. Hence, the State in question will do better in its bid for
development if most of her citizens are skillful in one field or the other and also demonstrate
positive attitudes at the work place. Right attitudes are very essential ingredients needed to
ensure harmony and peaceful co-existence among people. It is reasonable to claim that skillful
manpower is a pre-requisite for every nation that wishes to develop but a skillful manpower
without positive attitudes to work is likely to result in counter production.

4) The issue of fostering intercultural societies: The recognition of cultural diversity is certainly
meritorious, but civics and ethics education could move a step forward by appealing to the notion
of inter-culturalism, which explicitly asserts the need for relationship, dialogue, reciprocity and
interdependence. Beyond differences of semantics, civics and ethics education is a useful
instrument not only towards tolerating or celebrating each other, but also about nurturing
dynamic exchanges based on interaction, openness and effective solidarity.

CHAPTER TWO
UNDERSTANDING ETHICS

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical
theories in to two general subject areas: normative and non-normative ethics. Non-normative
ethics especially Meta ethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they
mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our
individual emotions? Meta ethical answers to these questions focus on the issues universal truths,
the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms
themselves.
Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that
regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should
acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Here
under normative ethics applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as
abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment,
or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of Meta ethics and normative ethics, discussions in
applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between Meta
ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is
an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But also it
depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life,
which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on
Meta ethical issues such as, „‟where do rights come from?‟‟ and „‟what kind of beings have
rights?

APPROACHES/CATEGORIES OF ETHICS

The subject matter of ethics can be broadly categorized in to normative ethics, and non-
normative or Meta ethics or theoretical ethics. Normative ethics deals with issues like what
actions are right or wrong? It gives us hands- on practical guidelines or norms, such as “do not
lie” or “do not harm,” regarding which actions are right and which are wrong. Meaning it gives
us practical guidelines or norms that we can apply to real life situations. Because of this, it is
sometimes referred to as applied ethics. A professional code of ethics is an example of a set of
practical moral guidelines. Moral guidelines are not simply a list of do‟s and don‟ts that others
impose upon us, however. As adults, it is not enough just to do as we are told. We expect to be
given reasons for acting certain ways or taking certain positions on moral issues. We want a
system of values that will offer us guidance in our quest for the good life-lives of happiness for
both others and ourselves. In these regard Meta ethics become a reinforcing matter. Meta ethics,
on the other hand, analyses and studies the meaning of ethical terms and judgments in normative
ethics. It is concerned with appraising the logical foundations and internal consistencies of
ethical systems. It takes as its starting point the most basic insights regarding morality.
Theoretical ethicists attempt to systematize and explain these basic moral convictions about what
is right and what is wrong. So, Meta ethics gives us a logical foundation how moral judgments
made. Thus it returns backs us to our subtitle “How are moral judgments made”. As a result, our
focus will be theoretical ethics. Normative Ethics has two parts: applied ethics and general
normative ethics.

Applied ethics
Applied ethics gives us hands-on practical guidelines or norms regarding which actions are right
and which actions are wrong that we can apply to real –life situation. For instance we can see
environmental ethics. It makes natural objects the center of ethical deliberations. For example if
one does not care about poisoning the air that other people and animals breath, prudential reason
would dictate that one realize that one is also poisoning one self.
General normative ethics
It is a reasoned search for principles of human conduct, including critical study of major theories
about which things are good, which acts are right, and which acts are wrong. Here under this
there are two broad categories of ethics: teleological and deontological ethics.
Teleological ethics
It is the view that judgments about whether an action is morally right should be made based on
an assessment of the probable effects, or consequences, of alternative acts that are open to the
person in question. An action is judged right or wrong, moral or immoral depending on what
happens as a result of it. Thus, they contend that an act is morally right insofar as it maximizes
the best results for everyone regardless of the means i.e. the end justifies the means. For instance
even if it is crude example, if Abebe to save his daughter‟s life that happen due to lack of health
service, stolen certain amount of money in one of his rich neighbor, his act is might be right.
Because he stolen money for the sake of saving his daughters. And if saves his daughter life by
bring her to medical center by the money he stolen, he is right because his action is evaluated in
terms of the end (saving his daughter‟s life) to use another example, until relatively recently,
many physicians lied to patients who were dying. The belief was, it is better to lie to patients
regarding a terminal condition such as cancer. Physicians justified the practice by arguing that
knowing the truth harmed the patients and increased their distress. Here one physician may lie
his patient. Here the physician may lie, but it is right because the end result of his lying is for the
very good of his patients. But currently it is found that lying harmed the patients and increased
their distress. Thus, currently the physician, who laid his patients, may not regard as a doing right
because his actions might not produce good results. What is the best consequence? But there is a
considerable disagreement about how to assess what is the best consequence. Is pleasure or
happiness the main basis for deciding what is best? Or is there some other criterion, such as
goodness, that should be the basis for deciding what is best for everyone? Another question that
arises is this? Should greater emphasis be placed on short-term or long-term effects? And also,
should we take account of the effects that would have on the society at large? Here the three
most important teleological theories: utilitarianism, ethical egoism and ethical altruism.

Ethical Egoism: Ethical egoism involves a value judgment, claiming that everyone ought to
pursue primarily his or her own interests. Psychological egoism is a doctrine about human
nature, claiming that everyone by nature pursues primarily his or her own interests. Whatever
one may make of Psychological egoism, if a person accepts at least the claim of ethical egoism
and is a hedonist, the result is egoistic hedonism, the doctrine that each individual should pursue
primarily his or her own pleasure: Egoism + hedonism = egoistic hedonism. For example,
according to egoistic hedonist “doing X” is the right action if it produces pleasure for you
regardless of its effect (may be its harmless) on other individuals. It is sometimes observed that
egoistic hedonism is perhaps the most widely practiced moral philosophy.
Utilitarianism/social hedonism: It is a doctrine that proposes we ought to act so as to promote
the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. But whose pleasure is to be maximized? Here
utilitarianism has always gone hand in hand with social hedonism, and indeed may be regarded
as identical with social hedonism i.e., the doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote that
greatest happiness for the greatest number. Thus, utilitarianism (social hedonism) is an ethical
doctrine that proposes an action is right if, and only if it promotes the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people. Like egoistic hedonism, social hedonism or utilitarianism holds to a
teleological conception of right action: It judges the rightness of an action by its consequences.
And like egoistic hedonism, utilitarianism is, of course hedonistic in its conception of right
action: It judges the rightness of an action by its production of pleasurable consequences. But the
two views differ at a critical point. Whereas the egoistic hedonist is motivated out of self-
interests and aims at self-satisfaction, utilitarianism is motivated out of an interest for the greatest
possible number of persons and aims at their satisfaction. In place of the egoism of egoistic
hedonism, utilitarianism substitutes the Benevolence Principle: Happiness is to be distributed as
widely and as equally as possible among all people. Utilitarianism is, obviously, a political
perspective as well as a philosophical one. As a democratic point of view it has often been, over
the years, the basis of legislative and judicial advances, social reforms, welfare movements, and
egalitarian ideals.

Ethical Altruism: an action is morally is right if the outcome of the action is more favorable
than unfavorable to everyone except the doer of the action. Here moral actions are motivated by
sympathy and compassion to others.

Deontological ethics

As you clearly understand in the above discussion a teleological theory of morality is one, which
emphasizes the intended consequences or results of actions as the criterion of their rightness.
Deontological theory states that the consequences or results of your action have nothing at all to
do with their rightness or wrongness. It is a theory that sets up as the criterion of moral behavior
not what might or might not happen-or be intended to happen- as a result of one’s actions, but
rather the intent to perform one’s duty through a certain action. For example you are expected to
be punctual. You have to be punctual not for the sake the consequences- if you arrive on time in
job you will not be punished or might be awarded-rather it is your duty (obligation) to arrive on
time.

Any “morality” founded on the conditional ought (“Do X, if…” or “ Do X, in order that…”) will
therefore be relative and particular rather than necessary and universal-but then it is not real
morality. Is it? For instance, imagine two soldiers for a dangerous mission; because they see a
task they ought to undertake, they voluntarily assume the responsibility for it. Certainly their act
will have consequences; equally certain is the fact that they desire certain consequences for their
act. The most careful consideration of these consequences, calculations as to how achieve some
desirable consequences and avoid other less desirable and an ardent desire to attain the goal do
not in the least detract from the morality of the men’s action if they are indeed acting on the
conviction that it is their duty to do these acts.
Now imagine that one of the men is killed before reaching his destination, while the other is
successful; what moral judgment do we pass up on them? So far as we judge that their motives
were equally good, we judge them in the same way. Their acts are judged to be equally moral, in
spite of the fact that one succeeded and the other failed. Each did his “best,” and what he
earnestly attempted and the motives that led him to do what he did are the proper objects of
moral judgments; what he accomplishes lies to a large extent beyond his control. This is not to
say that in deciding what we ought to do-how to fulfill our duty- we should never take the
consequences of our actions in to account. Often it is necessary to consider the results of an
action in order to perceive whether it is our duty. But it is out of duty that we should act, not for
the sake of the consequences. For instance, if we see the above example about Meta ethics
example, physicians lied to patients who were dying and they justified the practice by arguing
that knowing the truth harmed the patients and increased their distress. Here the duty of the
physician is treating his patient. Thus for the sake of performing his duty (treating the patient)
the physician may lie, and it is a right action, for deontologists. But, the physician lie by not
considering the end result of his lying, rather it needs to be for the sake of discharging his
responsibility under the given circumstance.

There are three categories of deontological or non-consequentialist theory

1. Divine command theory

According to one view, called the divine command theory (DCT), ethical principles are simply
the commands of God. They derive their validity from God’s commanding them, and they mean
“commanded by God.” Without God, there would be no universally valid morality.

2. Categorical imperative of kants

Immanuel Kant is the classic founder of this ethical theory. For him, morality is matter of ought,
or obligation. Doesn’t any moral theory tell us what we ought to do? This is not the problem. The
problem is that a distinction is not usually drawn between the conditional ought and
unconditional ought. A conditional ought to says, “You ought to do X if you want something or
other to happen.” ought is conditioned by something-or-other. But the unconditional ought is the
moral ought. Why? Because, as we all recognize- morality must be necessary and universal, that
is, it must be absolutely binding, and absolutely binding on everyone a like: whoever you are,
whatever your situation, you ought to do X. If cannibalism is wrong, it ought to be wrong
anywhere, at any place and time. But the conditional ought to involves “ifs” and “in-order-that’s
and therefore gets mixed up with all sorts of particular circumstances, changing desires, personal
inclinations, and so on.

3. Prima facie duties

A third and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher

W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Sir William David Ross (15
April 1877 – 5 May 1971), usually cited as W. D. Ross, was a Scottish
philosopher, known for work in ethics. The term prima facie means “at a
first sight” or “on the surface.” By prima facie duties, Ross means duties
that dictate what we should do when other moral factors are not
considered. Stated another way, prima facie duties are duties that generally
obligate us; that is, they ordinarily impose a moral obligation but may not in
a particular case because of circumstances. An actual duty is the action
that one ought to perform after considering and weighing all the prima facie
duties involved.

Ross presents seven categories of prima facie duties, although there may be
more categories. However, he does insist that we acknowledge and willingly
accept the seven categories without argument. His appeal for their
acceptance does not rely primarily on reason and argument but on intuition.
When faced with a situation that presents conflicting prima facie duties,
Ross tells us, the more obligatory, and our actual duty. The actual duty has
the greatest amount of prima facie rightness over wrongness.

 Duties of Fidelity: the duty to keep promises and the obligation not
to lie. Duties of fidelity are duties to keep one’s promises and
contracts and not to engage in deception.
 Duties of Reparation: This is a duty to make up for the injuries one
has done to others. Ross describes this duty as "resting on a previous
wrongful act". It is the duty to compensate others when we harm
them. If, for example, I damage something that belongs to someone
else, I have an obligation to make restitution.
  Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us. Suppose,
for example, an especially good friend is suddenly in need of
assistance, I am duty bound to do all I can help this individual, who in
the past had acted so selflessly toward me.
 Duties of Justice: The duty of justice requires that one act in such a
way that one distributes benefits and burdens fairly. Ross himself
emphasizes the negative aspect of this duty: he says that this type of
duty "rests on the fact or possibility of a distribution of pleasure or
happiness (or the means thereto) that is not in accord with the merit
of the persons concerned; in such cases there arises a duty to upset or
prevent such a distribution". Thus the duty of justice includes the
duty, insofar as possible, to prevent an unjust distribution of benefits
or burdens.
 Duties of Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others.
The duty to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom,
moral goodness, or happiness. This duty, says Ross, "rests upon the
fact that there are other beings in the world whose condition we can
make better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence, or of pleasure."
 Duties of Self-improvement: The duty of self-improvement is to act
so as to promote one’s own good, i.e., one’s own health, security,
wisdom, moral goodness, virtue, intelligence and happiness.
 Duties of Non-maleficence:The duty of non-injury (also known as
non-maleficence) is the duty not to harm others physically or
psychologically: to avoid harming their health, security, intelligence,
character, or happiness. We are obliged to avoid hurting others
physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Non normative (Meta) ethics

Suppose I am debating with a friend the question whether or not we ought to give to famine
relief, whether or not we are morally obliged to give to famine relief. The sorts of questions
philosophers raise about this kind of debate fall roughly into two groups. First, there are first
order questions about which party in the debate, if any, is right, and why. Then, there are second
order questions about what the parties in the debate are doing when they engage in it. Roughly,
the first order questions are the province of normative ethics, and the second order questions are
the province of metaethics. As one recent writer puts it:

In metaethics, we are concerned not with questions which are the province of normative ethics
like 'Should I give to famine relief?' or 'Should I return the wallet I found in the street?' but with
questions about questions like these.

Meta-ethics tries to answer question, such as:

 What does “good,” “right,” or “justice” mean?
 What makes something good or right?
 Is moral realism true?
 Is morality irreducible, cognitive, or overriding?
 Do intrinsic values exist?
It is important to be clear that in normative ethics we do not just look for an answer to the
question 'Should we give to famine relief?' we also look for some insight into why the right
answer is right. It is in their answers to this latter sort of 'why?' question that the classic theories
in normative ethics disagree.

WORK CONDUCT AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

In this part we will see and discuss some points on professional ethical standards (code). The
issues under this topic are very important and closely related with your professional capability
and performance in the future. Professional standards are inseparably related with the works that
we human beings do to sustain our life, especially with those works that require professional
capacity. Work is the most valuable activity in the life of human beings. It is the driving force
and the rolling wheel behind the survival of human beings and their civilization. This is why it is
believed that people has to give deep concern for the works that they are doing.

Common professional ethical values

Dear students, we hope you don’t expect all field related ethical codes to be discussed in this
topic. For the time being, let us broadly classified professional ethical codes in to specific field
related ethical codes and general (universal) ethical codes. Specific codes of ethics are those,
which can only be viewed and applied to a certain specific profession. Whereas, universal ethical
codes are those that can be referred, and complied by all professions altogether.
Let us now see some very important and significant universal ethical codes that should be
applied by all professions. Some of the common disciplinary rules expected from workers in all
professions include; punctuality, proper utilization of instruments of labor, working in
cooperation with fellow workers, developing professional skills and execution of commitments
entrusted etc…. are code of ethics that must be observed by workers in different profession.