UNIT-1

Ethics and Morality

Ethics are a set of moral canons based on well-founded moral norms that dictate what humans
should do, usually regarding rights, obligations, societal advantages, justice, or unique qualities.
On the other hand, ethical theories are attempts to provide a clear account of what our ethical
requirements and obligations are. Different theories are tapped into to try and explain what people
ought to do depending on the situation and the moral dilemma. The question arises of whether
ethics is an art or a science. Author Scott B. Rae suggests that ethics is both an art and a science.

Morals

Morals are the welfare principles enunciated by the wise people, based on their experience and
wisdom. They were edited, changed or modified or evolved to suit the geography of the region,
rulers (dynasty), and in accordance with development of knowledge in science and technology and
with time.

Morality is concerned with principles and practices of morals such as:

a) What ought or ought not to be done in a given situation?

b) What is right or wrong about the handling of a situation? And

c) What is good or bad about the people, policies, and ideals involved?

Values

A value is defined as a principle that promotes well-being or prevents harm.” Another definition
is: Values are our guidelines for our success—our paradigm about what is acceptable.” Evolution
of Human Values:

The human values evolve because of the following factors:

1. The impact of norms of the society on the fulfillment of the individual’s needs or desires.

2. Developed or modified by one’s own awareness, choice, and judgment in fulfilling the needs.

3. by the teachings and practice of Preceptors (Gurus) or Saviors or religious leaders.

4. Fostered or modified by social leaders, rulers of kingdom, and by law (government)

Professional ethics

Profession is a commitment to a designated and organized occupation by virtue of being an

authority over a body of knowledge with requisite skills acquired through specialized training.
An occupation becomes a profession when a group of people sharing the same occupation work
together in a morally acceptable way with members setting and following a certain ethics code. A
professional is a practitioner belonging to a specific profession.

Professional ethics, as opposed to personal values and morality, is a set of ethical standards and
values a practicing engineer is required to follow. It sets the standards for professional practice,
and is only learned in a professional school or while practicing one’s own profession. Today, it is
an essential part of professional education because it helps students deal with issues they will face.

Ethics in Indian Tradition

Ethics is the indispensable part of Hindu religion and other religions of Indian origin. Indian ethical
ideals and principles are very much found in the Vedas and in other Indian literatures and in other
teachings of the Indian religions.

The Indian term for morality and ethics is ‘dharma’. The dharma in Hinduism is coextensive with
morality. Dharma in the Vedas refers to the highest truth and power and it is very much understood
as the performance of Vedic sacrifices and other rituals in the Vedas and Dharmasastras. So
Dharma is understood in Vedas as duty par-excellence.

Dharma is also generally understood as the duties of humans according to one’s own caste and
stage of life (Varnasrama Dharma). Thus the Hindu concept of dharma has been recognized by its
very close association with ritualistic and caste-oriented duties. And the purely moral sense of duty
is overshadowed.

The Hindu thinkers advocate and recommend the practice of moral virtues and moral norms, which
make a man as man. These moral virtues are called Sadharana Dharma or universal duties. Hence
the term dharma in Hinduism has two connotations:

Performance of ritual sacrifices and duties according to one’s own caste andThe practice of moral
virtues and norms.

So when we speak of dharma as morality, it includes all the duties one ought to perform and all
the virtues he ought to practice to attain moksa or liberation.

Way of Righteousness in the GITA

The realization of the Supreme Reality through a life of righteous actions is the central well-knit
theme of all the eighteen chapters of the Gita. Actions are to be performed with the realization of
Brahmajnana. To attain the Brahmajnana one is advised to make a diligent search through
devotion, renunciation and self surrender.

From attachment desire springs from desire wrath arises, from wrath comes infatuation, from
infatuation loss of memory and mind and finally from loss of mind he perishes. So liberation from
all kinds of bondages is possible only by the realization of the Brahman or surrender unto the Lord
and vice versa, the realization of the Brahman is only through the liberation from all kinds of
bondages.

Actions are to be performed without any attachment to the fruit of the actions. This is one of the
means of attaining Brahmajnana. Thus Gita emphasizes both on Karma Yoga and Gnana Yoga for
the attainment of the Supreme Bliss, but yet Karma Yoga is superior to Gnana Yoga.

Karma Yoga simply means a mode of realizing the Brahman through devotional meditation on
the name of God, and the practice of one’s own duties without any attachment. One will be blessed
with Brahmayoga, which will lead him not only to moral success but also to the infinite spiritual
joy and peace.

There is another way promoted by the Gita to attain the ultimate realization in life and liberation
from the cycle of births and deaths, which is known as Karma Yoga (Path of activity). The Gita
has described this way as the method of disinterested action (NishkamaKarma).

To attain moksa one has to be freed from the bondage to one’s own actions. So the Gita suggests
the golden rule that actions should be done with the spirit of non-attachment to their fruits.

Doctrine of Karma

The doctrine of Karma states that whatever a man suffers or enjoys is the fruit of his own deed, a
harvest sprung from his own actions, good or bad committed in his previous life. Karma is of four
categories:

Sanchita Karma, which means the accumulated past actions

Prarabdha Karma, which means the part of Sanchita Karma, this results in the present birth itself.
This is also called predestination

Kriyamana Karma, which means present willful actions or free will

Agami Karma, which means the immediate results caused by our present actions.

Karma simply means action. And this Karma must remind us that what is called the consequence
of an action is really not a separate thing but it is a part of the action and it cannot be divided from
it. The consequence is the part of the action, which belongs to the future but yet the part is done in
the present. Whatever a man sows he shall reap.

Ethical Behaviors in the Workplace

Obey The Company’s Rules & Regulation

At the start of an employee contract, companies may need the employee to sign various
documents, including the company rules and regulation agreement form. Also, the employee may
be given a handbook that may serve as a guide.
Some common rules are tardiness, inappropriate dressing, and language, etc. Due to the excitement
of getting a new job, some employees do not properly read these rules and may end up deferring
them in the future.

Therefore, it is important that new employees properly read these rules & regulations in other not
to defer them.

Communicate Effectively

Effective communication is very important to avoid misunderstandings when dealing with issues
in the workplace. Communicating effectively may mean different things to people at different
points in time.

Let us consider the hypothetical situation of an employee trying to relay information to a French-
speaking customer. The best way to communicate effectively with the customer is to have an
employee who can speak French relay the information.

Effective communication may also have an employee breaking one of the rules and regulations of
the company without getting penalized for it. An employee reaching out to HR that they will be
coming in late due to some unforeseen circumstances may be spared for coming late if the situation
is properly communicated.

Develop Professional Relationships

Good professional relationships are not only a thing that fosters teamwork among employees, but
also help with individual career development for employees. Developing professional
relationships with coworkers or other professionals outside the workplace will also directly or
indirectly improve productivity.

Professional relationships between low-level and high-level employees will make it easier for
ideas to be shared and knowledge to be passed to junior employees. That way, the company can
confidently have an intern work on a tough project to meet a pending deadline due to the guidance
from older employees.

Salespeople, for one, need to build external professional relationships with professionals from
other organizations—especially those who are potential clients. These relationships will help
create a contact person in another organization in case they need to sell a product to them.

Take Responsibility

It is important for employees to always take responsibility for decisions made both individually
and in a team. This is, in fact, a leadership trait that every employee who is looking to take up a
managerial position in the future should exhibit.

Professionalism/Standards
There are professional standards that everything an employee does in the workplace. The use of
informal words in a formal workplace is highly unprofessional.

These standards should be held high and applied to every part of an employee’s activity in the
workplace. This should include the way they speak, kind of work they deliver and their relationship
with coworkers and customers.

Be Accountable

Accountability is also a very good trait of an employee. One of the things that may short change
a talented and responsible is the lack of accountability.

Lack of accountability may result in your boss thinking you have an “I don’t care attitude” to the
company’s project or worst take you as a liar and may lead to job loss in the long run. For example,
at the beginning of each year, a certain amount of money is allocated to each department.

The manager is meant to oversee how this money is spent. If at the end of the year, the manager
can not make an account of how the money was spent, he may then be suspected of stealing
company funds.

Uphold Trust

An employee should not do anything that may make his or her employee withdraw trust. As an
employee of a company, your employee trusts you to get work done perfectly on time.

Things like missing deadlines regularly or delivering work that needs to be revised over and over
again will deny you a promotion. It may even leave the employer not giving you tasks to complete
in the future—a nightmare for freelancers.

Show Initiative without being told

Is the company running behind deadline and you feel you can stay a few extra hours after work to
finish up? Do it.

You are a freelance designer and your client wants a particular poster designed but doesn’t have a
copywriter to write the content. If you can write the contents, do so. Don’t delay a client’s work
because of a few contents.

Respect Your Colleagues

It doesn’t matter whether you are dealing with the intern, a junior, janitor, etc. they should all be
treated with respect. As a manager, treating your team members with respect will help improve
their productivity.

Giving constructive criticism and saying kind words to them even when they are not able to deliver
perfectly will help them strive to do better in the future.
Work Smarter

Don’t just work hard, work smarter. The reason why you see an employee promoted to the post
of manager after just 2 years and a hardworking employee who has been with the company for 10
years failed to get a promotion is smart work.

Assume that these 2 employees are data scientists who collect data and analyze them. A smarter
employee will use the Formplus data collection tool to collect data and receive real-time data
analytics, while a hard-working employee will print paper-based forms and do the hard work of
sharing it to respondents.

Ethical Judgment:

Ethical judgment is reasoning about the possible actions in the situation and judg- ing which action
is most ethical. A person making an ethical judgment uses reason to decide what the best solution
or decision is to a problem.

Ethical decision-making is based on core character values like trustworthiness, respect,

responsibility, fairness, caring, and good citizenship. Ethical decisions generate ethical behaviors
and provide a foundation for good business practices.

They are expressed in statements such as "human life and dignity should be protected," or
"cheating is wrong." They develop over time and are influenced by family, religion, education,
peers and a whole range of experiences, both good and bad, that have helped shape us.

These barriers include: improper framing; cognitive biases and psychological tendencies; moral
rationalizations; and self-interest. Improper framing takes place when we ignore the ethical
implications of the situation, and instead only recognize the economic and/or legal implications of
the situation.

Moral Judgment:

Moral judgment, unlike other types of judgment, is a very perceptive decision-making process.
Moral judgments are based on an individual’s perception of what is right or wrong in different
situations. This judgment is not only related to the social aspects of morality but also to the essence
of morality. The term “moral judgment” has been used in psychological context but this concept
can be applied outside of that as well. Oftentimes people use the term when discussing what certain
things are morally justifiable or not justifiable.

Criteria for Moral Judgments:

There are various criteria that are used to determine the morality of an action. Among them, moral
axioms have the most influence in moral judgments. Moral axioms are a set of general rules that
guide moral judgments. These rules can be divided into five moral principles:
(1) Impartiality

(2) Universalizability

(3) Voluntariness

(4) Joint enterprise

(5) Suffering and respect for persons

According to “Ethics” by Ronald Dworkin, there are three types of morality: prescriptive,
descriptive and reflective. Prescriptive morality has its rules and laws, which people follow and
are obliged to do. This type of morality is similar to legal or contractual ethics. Descriptive morality
focuses on individual judgments, while reflective morality focuses on understanding the reasons
behind moral judgments. An important factor that influences moral judgments is one’s own social
identity. This can be defined as a sense of membership in a grouping such as society and the norms
associated with it. The stronger a person’s social identity, the stronger the inclination towards
following certain moral values within this grouping.

Canons of Professional Ethics

1. Adhere to established standards of advertising and selling;

2. Honestly represent products and services;

3. Conduct business in an honest manner and abide by the law;

4. Openly identify the principal office, any branch office, and the ownership of the business;

5. Abide by all written agreements and verbal representations;

6. Address marketplace disputes quickly, professionally, and in good faith;

7. Protect any data collected against mishandling and fraud;

8. Approach all business dealings, marketplace transactions, and commitments with integrity, and
conduct business in a fair and just manner;

9. Provide for the safety and training of employees to ensure a healthy work environment;

10. Stay current and educate employees and clients in the most current research and practices
available to the industry;

11. Comply with all applicable laws and rules including quarantine restrictions established by a
State or Federal agency having jurisdiction in New Jersey

Duty Based Ethics

Ethics helps us decide how one ought to act when in a given situation. One of the ways to organize
ethical thought into something beneficial is called an ethical framework. Here, I will shed light on
one of the major ethical frameworks: duty-based ethics. In doing this, I will give a short account
of its origins, and I aim to contrast the theoretical and practical applications of the ethical
framework.

Before we get too far, allow me to define a key term: the ethical framework. An ethical framework
is a way of organizing one’s thoughts into a system which can guide ethical decisions. In other
words, ethical frameworks can help us think, but they cannot give us objectively correct answers.
The duty-based framework says that some kinds of actions (i.e., those with poor intentions) are
morally repugnant, regardless of their consequences. The framework holds that one should avoid
these universally morally wrong actions because it is one’s duty to society, even if it produces
negative consequences or no consequence at all.

To understand specific interpretations of duty-based ethics, let us examine the concept’s origins.
The duty-based approach is most commonly associated with the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724–1804), but the framework had adherents far before the 18th century. St. Augustine of
Hippo (354–430) espoused the idea that something is good only if it is “in accordance with God’s
will.” Essentially, Augustine claimed that actions taken when one’s will coincides with that of God
are the only morally commendable actions. Much later, Kant argued that one should act “only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.” This is Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and it informs much of the duty-based approach even
today. To illustrate Kant’s argument, consider the act of telling a lie. If we extended the maxim to
become a universal law, we would have the statement “one should always lie.” Nobody would will
this to become a universal law, so the Categorical Imperative deems lying to be morally
reprehensible. Kant argues that it is our duty to act according to the maxims which we would
universalize.

Ethics of Responsibility:

Ethical responsibility is the ability to recognize, interpret and act upon multiple principles and
values according to the standards within a given field and/or context.

Lower level ethical responsibility:

• demonstrates an understanding of a range of principles, standards and values involved in

making ethical decisions and the application of knowledge
• engages in decision making according to the standards of practice and ethics of the field
• communicates situations, information and outcomes to others accurately and based on
ethical standards of the field
• reflects upon one's own actions and implications in situations and takes responsibility for
actions while working with others and/or solving problems.
Upper level ethical responsibility:

• recognizes different perspectives and analyzes situations to provide best solutions under
particular circumstances according to the standards of practice and ethics of the field
• develops an ethical framework based on the field’s standards of practice and takes
responsibilities for decision making and actions based on this framework in various and
unpredictable contexts
• participates in the formation of mission, vision and values in a field or organization
• assesses the impact of different activities on the environment, society and the field and
develops a sense of social responsibility while making judgments and decisions on these
activities.

Examples of ethical responsibility:

• collaborations, partnerships, teamwork

• service learning
• volunteerism
• social/political action activities, community advocacy, social advocacy
• leadership roles
• ethical training certificates
• teaching others, conducting trainings, leading workshops
• development of policies, practices, standards, criteria, organizational mission
• examples of ethical dilemmas and solutions

Difference between Moral & Ethics

• Morals are what you believe, while ethics are what you do. You can have conflicting morals
and ethics, like believing stealing is wrong but doing it anyway.
• Morals are often based on religion or culture, while ethics are based on logic and reason.
This means that you can have different ethical systems even if you share the same morals.
• Morals usually deal with personal conduct, while ethics deal with professional conduct.
For example, a doctor may consider euthanasia to be morally acceptable but ethically
unacceptable because of their position as a doctor.
• It’s possible for someone to live by their moral standards without ever having any conflicts
with their ethics because morality deals more with how we should behave in our day-to-
day lives, while ethics looks at all actions in general – both good and bad.

Ethical Theories:

Consequentialist Theories
 • To a first approximation, consequentialist theories claim that whether an act is right or
wrong depends only on the non-moral value of relevant consequences, either the
consequences of the act itself (direct consequentialism) or the consequences of something
related to that act (indirect consequentialism), such as the social acceptance of moral rules
that require or prohibit that act. The most prominent consequentialist theories are versions
of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
• Some things have non-moral value and disvalue. That is, there are some things (e.g.,
pleasure) that would be good, and other things (e.g., pain) that would be bad, even if there
were no right or wrong, and no virtue or vice. Thus, some states of affairs have greater non-
moral value than others (because they contain or realize more non-moral value than others).
• Consequentialist theories claim that rightness and wrongness (and also virtue and vice) are
determined, either directly or indirectly, by the non-moral value of consequences, or
outcomes—that is, consequent states of affairs. For instance, act consequentialist theories
claim that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined (directly) by the non-moral
value of its consequences. And rule consequentialist theories claim that the rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined (indirectly) by the non-moral value of the consequences
of our accepting a moral code that requires or prohibits that act.
• Utilitarian theories claim that the overall value of a given outcome (consequent state of
affairs) depends only on how much happiness or well-being it contains (or that is realized
therein). Egalitarian and prioritarian theories claim that the overall value of a given
outcome also depends on how happiness or well-being is distributed among the individuals
therein. Egalitarian theories claim that more equal distributions are preferable, ceteris
paribus. Prioritarian theories claim that distributions favoring those who are worse off over
those who are better off are to be preferred, ceteris paribus. (In practice, utilitarians and
prioritarians often favor promoting the well-being of those who are less well-off as a means
of promoting greater aggregate well-being or more equal distributions thereof.)
• Consequentialist theories typically claim that the happiness or well-being of all sentient
beings is of fundamental moral significance and, moreover, that a benefit (or harm) to any
one individual (sentient being) is of equivalent value (or disvalue) to any other benefit (or
harm) of equivalent size to any other individual. (This is consistent with the further claim
that humans can be benefitted or harmed in ways that non-human animals cannot be.)

Non-Consequentialist (incl. Deontological) Theories

• To a first approximation, non-consequentialist theories claim that whether an act is right or

wrong depends on factors other than or in addition to the non-moral value of relevant
consequences.
• Non-consequentialist theories accept constraints, options, or both. Non-consequentialist
theories that accept constraints are often referred to as deontological theories.
• Constraints are limits or restrictions on what we may do to promote good ends or optimal
outcomes—limits on what it is permissible to do, even to achieve noble ends or the greater
 good. Thus, theories that accept constraints deny that it is always permissible to do
whatever would have the best consequences. Both general obligations, such as duties not
to harm or lie to others, and universal human rights would be constraints. So would special
obligations, including duties of care and other role obligations. Moreover, constraints
would include not only duties of and rights to non-interference (negative duties and rights),
but also duties to provide and rights to goods or services (positive duties and rights), such
as assistance, an education, or health care.
• Options are limits on what we must do to promote good ends or optimal outcomes—
including, most prominently, permissions to pursue our own interests or projects even
when doing so would have suboptimal consequences. Thus, theories that accept options
deny that it is always obligatory to do whatever would have the best consequences.
• Moreover, non-consequentialist theories accept constraints or options on non-
consequentialist grounds. In contrast, act-consequentialist theories reject both constraints
and options. They may accept rules that specify constraints or options, but only as
guidelines or heuristics, and only on the basis of consequentialist reasoning (see above).
And while rule-consequentialist theories may accept constraints or options, they may do
so only on consequentialist grounds. Thus, most rule-consequentialist theories may (and
do) accept them only insofar as the code of rules whose general acceptance would have the
best consequences provides for them (see above).
• Neither non-consequentialism nor deontology should be confused with moral absolutism,
the view that some or all moral prohibitions or rules hold without exception. Absolutism
in this sense most often takes the form of the view that certain actions are morally
impermissible simply in virtue of being members of certain identifiable kinds of action,
such as lies, acts of adultery, and deliberate killings of the innocent. It may also take the
form of the view that there are absolute moral rights, that is, moral rights that may never
be permissibly infringed. Although some non-consequentialist ethical theories are
absolutist in this sense, many non-consequentialists —including many deontologists—
reject such absolutism.

Virtue Theories

• To a first approximation, theories of virtue ethics propose that what makes a particular act
moral, or individual agent morally praiseworthy, is some aspect of the agent’s character.
• Many ethical theories rest on intuitions about various types of virtuous behavior, such as
the virtue of beneficence (Utilitarianism), caring for others (Ethics of Care), or justice
(various elements of contractarianism). However virtue theories are distinct in proposing
that morality consists not only in the existence of particular virtues, but also in the
possession of multiple virtues by identifiable agents.
• Virtue Ethics is an agent-centered approach to morality, which addresses the question
“How ought I be in order to live the good life?” which can be contrasted with other
approaches to ethics which center on the question “What ought I do”.
 • The genesis of virtue theories can be found in the philosophy of the ancient Greeks,
particularly Aristotle’s presentation of the view in his “Nicomachean Ethics”. Virtue theory
fell out of favor until its revival in the latter part of the 20th century, which has yielded
many influential modern restatements of the view including those of Philippa Foot
Rosalind Hursthouse and Virginia Held.
• Virtues are character traits, which are identified as good. Particular theories differ in those
character traits which are counted as virtues, and range from the very broad
characterization given by Aristotle, who included bodily and intellectual virtues on his list
such as beauty and intelligence, to more narrowly prescribed accounts that focus on more
traditionally moral traits such as beneficence and courage.
• Virtue theories generally include some meta-virtues, virtues that facilitate the use of the
other virtues. Aristotle’s take on the meta-virtue is the virtue of practical wisdom, the
specific intellectual virtue of knowing how to appropriately deploy the other virtues. The
importance of meta-virtues such as practical wisdom highlights the contextual dependence
of morally appropriate behavior that is central to virtue ethics.
• A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who possess and exercises the
virtues.
• Virtue theories are often criticized in applied contexts for being an agent-focused theory,
so although it can answer the question “How ought I live?” its answer to the question “What
should I do?” is generally less clear. A notable attempt to generate a more act-focused
version of Virtue Ethics is Rosalind Hursthouse’s proposal of v-rules. V-rule are essentially
rules of thumb for the practical implementation of the virtues.

Hedonism Ethical Theory:

I. Hedonistic theories are one possible answer to the question of "What is intrinsic goodness?"

A. Hedonism: (def.) the philosophical doctrine that (1) all pleasure is intrinsically good, and (2)
nothing but pleasure is intrinsically good.

Similar theories might involve enjoyment, satisfaction, happiness, as concepts substituted for
pleasure. A major problem of hedonism is getting clear as of what pleasure and pain consist. Are
pleasures events, properties, states, or some other kind of entity?

B. Psychological Hedonism: (a descriptive theory) all people do in fact pursue pleasure. This
theory holds that this is not the way people ought to be; this is the way people actually are—they
naturally seek pleasure. Hence, the theory is an inductive generalization from experience by social
scientists.

C. Ethical Hedonism (a prescriptive theory) whether or not people pursue pleasure, they should or
ought to do so. A right action is productive of pleasure; a wrong action is productive of pain.

Utilitarianism Ethical Theory

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is
a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for
the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or
war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way
in which it accounts for costs and benefits.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the
consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For
example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants:
a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could
be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest
good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone
the most ethical one.

Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism is the view that moral (or normative) statements are not objectively true, but
“true” relative to a particular individual or society that happens to hold the belief.

In saying that moral beliefs are relative, we mean that they are a function of, or dependent on, what
those individuals or societies do, in fact, believe.

Put negatively, according to E.R., there are no objective moral values, no objective right or wrong,
and no universally valid moral claims independent of what a subject happens to believe.

Hence, there are no objective and universal norms against which we might measure our subjective
beliefs about morality. There is no moral knowledge. The opposite view- right and wrong is
objective and universal – is often called non relativism, or Ethical Objectivism.

Two versions of Ethical Relativism

Individual or Personal Ethical Relativism: ethical statements are relative to the individual. I have
my ethical views and you have yours, neither my views nor your views are better or more correct.
In a sense we are all equally correct, insofar as whatever we believe is true, or looked at differently,
the idea of being more or less correct doesn’t apply to moral beliefs, since that would assume that
there is some objective standard of right or wrong, independent of what I might believe which
would serve as a standard of judgment, but that is exactly what relativism denies. This is sometimes
called ethical subjectivism.

Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism: ethical statements are relative to a given society. Although
societies may differ or disagree as to what is right or wrong, for an individual to decide what is
right or wrong, one must simply look to the norms of the society in which they live. Right and
wrong simply IS what a given society says it is. And although a society may believe that its views
are the correct ones, cultural ethical relativism insists that no society’s views are better or more
moral that any other society’s beliefs. For the same reason stated above, there is no objective
standard independent of what a society actually believes against which its views might be
evaluated. An operational definition of Ethical Relativism: Whenever two people or two societies
disagree about the morality of an act (i.e., hold different and opposing views), both sides are
equally correct.

Four Reasons (Arguments) for Ethical Relativism

1. The Diversity of Moral Views

For: The actual fact that People and Societies have and continue to disagree about the moral issues,
they continue to hold different moral beliefs. For a Relativist, this fact is best explained by and is
therefore evidence for E.R.; otherwise we would expect to find considerable moral agreement.
(See Ruth Benedict).

In sum: The fact of disagreement and differences in moral beliefs is evidence for the claim that
there are no objective moral truths, only subjective moral beliefs.

2. Moral Uncertainty

For: Despite our best efforts, we are often uncertain about what is the right thing to do, especially
in the context of a dilemma, our judgment seems to be very subjective, a matter of personal
opinion. There seems to be no decisive way to settle many moral disputes, in contrast with factual
disputes. Relativism based on epistemic uncertainty and/or skepticism.

In sum, the fact that I do not know for certain in a given situation what is right implies that there
is no objective standard; hence morality is relative and subjective.

3. Situational Differences

For: The actual situation in which people live are often very different, it is implausible to believe
that there could be one set of moral principles or rules that are universally true for all persons at
all times.

In sum, given the many differences in particular circumstances, what we all morality must be
relative to the particular situation and no objective or universally valid moral norms exist.

4. Toleration of Differences

For: People from different cultures have different moral beliefs, one ought to tolerate, i.e., not be
critical of, these beliefs. One ought not to think that one view is better or more correct than another,
hence one should adopt ethical relativism, which entails that all moral beliefs are equally correct.
In sum, Ethical Relativism promotes Tolerance for differences and/or Tolerance is consistent with
ethical relativism.

Ethical naturalism

Ethical naturalists hold that there are natural moral properties and relations. According to them
moral properties like goodness, justice, rightness, etc. are natural. Thus, in ethical naturalism
ethical sentences express propositions which are made true by the real and objective features of
the world. Ethical naturalism holds that moral values and moral obligations fit into the
scientifically based, naturalistic view of the world. “It holds, more specifically, (a) that such ethical
properties as the goodness of persons, character traits, and other things, and such as the rightness
or wrongness of actions, are natural properties of the same general sort as properties investigated
by the sciences, and (b) that they are to be investigated in the same general way that we investigate
those properties.” Moral values, being objective, can be known in the same way as we know the
scientific facts. Ethical naturalists believe that moral claims are ultimately about features of the
natural world, which is the subject matter of scientific study and therefore, they tend to embrace
moral realism which is the view that moral claims are not merely expressive statements but are
literally true or false.

Ethical naturalism can be understood by joining the following claims: There are objective, mind-
independent moral facts, Moral facts are natural facts; we know moral claims are true in the same
way that we know about claims in the natural sciences, and our moral claims are synonymous with
certain claims in natural sciences.

John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism is often seen as an example of ethical naturalism, which
states that an action is morally right to the extent that it tends to produce maximum happiness and
morally wrong to the extent that it fails to produce happiness or tends to produce unhappiness.