Utilitarianism.

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. This approach is also called situation ethics. The situation determines the rightness and wrongness of an action. For example lying may be right when lying will accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number of people than not lying. This approach uses the principle of utility to determine the rightness and wrongness of an act. An act is right and wrong depending on the degree to which it is useful or harmful. One has to ask the question does this particular action bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The problem with such an approach is the potential danger for the individuals rights and concerns to be discarded for the good of the community. It overrides the corn for just for the individual (see John 11:49-50) Caiaphas suggests to the Sanhedrin to sacrifice one person rather than for the whole community to suffer. The other problem for this approach is the assumption of our ability to anticipate the results of our actions. We need to admit that we cannot anticipate all that will result from every act we made nor really know what balance of good over evil will ensue from our moral actions.

Lecture # 4 Normative ethics as Ethics of Being One of the shortcomings normative ethics of doing is that it does not deal with attitudes and motivations from which out actions spring. This is a very important aspect of the Christians decision making process. It constructs a theory of moral obligations by focusing on human action. In our opinion, ethical decisions are best made as a result of who we are. Our being is the fountain from which our action and behavior spring. This understanding of ethics is consistent with biblical ethics. We will deal with this later on in this course. The locus of ethics then lies somewhere else; in who we are (ought to be) rather than in what we do. Of cause we need to emphasize that what we are will determine what we do and what we do is always a reflection of what we are. The ethical life is not primarily a function of the actions that people engage in but a function of the kind of people that engage in the actions. This understanding of ethics turns

our focus from actions to character and virtue and speaks about actions that emerge from the virtuous person. Today many ethicists are abandoning the ethic of doing and searching for an ethic of character, virtue or being. Ethic of being is concerned with we should be or what we should prefer. The concept places conduct secondary to character. Conduct is important both as an expression of character and as a means in developing character. Ethic of being gives primacy to value judgments. Moral obligations are derive from judgments about motives, traits or virtues of the moral agent. The moral person is to develop certain character traits from which moral decisions are made. It is from this well of values, virtues that gives the basis for the actions of a person. In summary: Our discussion on normative ethics has led us to see how ethical decisions are made by people today using the ontological, teleological or the utilitarian approach. We see the emphases on these different approaches are different. While the deontological theories emphasize right actions, right traits, the teleological theories on the other hand emphasize on what is good, what we value as the basis for making ethical decisions. While the deontologists stress traits- that are virtuous, (from which ones actions spring) as well as rules, standards and principle that govern ones actions the Consequentialists stress values or desires. All however are concerned about the good of the person. They are concern about what is referred to as the good life. In normative ethics, the good life becomes the converging point for both the deontologist and the consequentialist. The good life then becomes the foundational principle of the moral life. Our conception of the ethical life is connected to our perception on the good life. The good life is the life of obedience to ones duty. What then forms the basis of our ethical judgments? Normative ethics logically leads us to analytical ethics. What is the good or the good life? Ethicists have proposed three major responses to this question of ethical judgments: Naturalism, intuitionism and non-cognitivism. We will examine each of these concepts in turn. Naturalism

Naturalism assumes a connection between ethical judgments and what actually is. Ethical judgments are rooted in fact that is in the nature of reality or in the way things are. The appeal to the way things are suggests that ethical concepts can be defined by replacing them with non-ethical terms or non-ethical statements of fact. In other words, ethical terms and propositions are translatable into factual words and statements that can be empirically verified. For example, goodness and right are seen as natural properties which are connected with observable reality. This is often referred to as ethical naturalism. Naturalism may refer to any ethical judgment that offers judgment about right or good to what is considered to be natural. Here ethicists discover universal principles of

obligation in nature, or what is part of our own nature or what is innate to us. This finds its highest expression in classical naturalism that finds its expression in natural law. This is what is referred to as natural law. Natural law starts with experiencewhat isand then tries to go from there to what ought to be. This approach always lead to naturalistic fallacy it is; therefore it ought to be. It moves from natural qualities that things possess to ethical statements about right and goodness. Here the focus is on human experience. The focus is not on God. Natural law starts with the world and tires to work to moral imperatives. In place of this naturalistic ethics we offer a more appropriate ethics- Creation ethics. Instead of humans being at the center of ethics, creation ethics begins with God and his will for living in creation. Creation ethics starts with God and his revelation, and looking at the world as his creation, develops moral imperatives that are both divine commands and also good for human life. Roman Catholic Theology uses natural law in its moral theology. Thomas Aquinas argues that the foundation for ethical judgments lies in the distinctive feature of human nature and this distinctive feature acts as a type of law that is meant to govern human conduct. Natural law is based on a description of how things normally do behave and a set of precepts (laws) as to how they ought to behave. Naturalism sees human nature as good and therefore advocates and speaks about human goodness. This does not only lead to naturalistic fallacy but it has theological problem as well. We cannot move from the is-ness; that the fact that the world exists or is to make ethical statements that the world is good. Christians believe that world is not what it ought to be; humans are fallen creatures living in a fallen world. Homosexuality appeals to naturalismarguing that because the homosexual person was born that way and homosexuality is natural to that person, homosexual activity is right. Secondary there is another dimension of naturalismmetaphysical naturalism. This kind of naturalism appeals not to natural or the natural but to the supernatural realm. Ethical statements can be translated into assertions of metaphysical or theological facts. Right does not primarily mean what is conducive to harmonious happiness but what is commanded by God. This raises some theological questions. Is something right because God commands it? Or does God command something because it is right? The first sentence transforms or makes God a capricious despot or as a comic bully; while the second sentence robs God of his sovereignty. Intuitionism

Intuitionism is not naturalism. It is non-naturalism. It suggests that ethical terms such as good are names of objects or qualities observable by intuition rather than by sense perception or scientific observation. Ethical truth according to intuitionists is by direct intuition rather than by deductive reasoning. Ethical truth is self-evident. Reason is central to this view. By reason is meant the process of moving step by step from premise to

conclusion. Ethicists call this intuitive reason or rational intuition. Intuition allows us to see the rightness or wrongness of specific acts. Intuitive reasoning involves recognizing a particular truth immediately without deducing it from some other truth, or any other assertions. A self-evident proposition is evident or true by itself alone. It is not an influence from some proposition other than itself. By intuition we understand the foundational moral principles from which we infer ethical judgments about specific acts. This fundamental principle (goodness) of ethics is self-evident. Noncognitivism

Noncognitivists argues that ethical judgments do not carry cognitive meaning. This understanding is based on the assumption that a statement is meaningful if it asserts or denies something that is objectively true or false about an object in the universe, so that its truth or falsity can be determined by comparing it with reality. In other words ethical statements do not seek clarification, they look for justification. In all the cases, love provides the justification. For example, if I make the statement: The killing of innocent babies is wrong, I have not said anything objective about the term killing. Although normative ethical assertions do not have cognitive meaning they carry great emotive meaning. They express emotions, feelings and attitudes. Ethical statements are not merely expressions of our own emotions but to induce the same emotional feeling in the hearers. Ethical statements are calculated to arouse feelings and thereby perhaps even to stimulate action. Ethical judgments are intended to be persuasive and expressive. Justifying Ethics ItselfValue of General Ethics Why do we have to be moral? What is the philosophical justification for being moral? The answer to this question is very simply. To be moral is conducive to human living that enriches human life. The focus lies in our cooperate existence; ethics is important for harmonious social interaction. Good moral behavior is necessary to produce and sustain the conditions that make corporate human life possible. Ethics promotes social cohesion. Without certain agreed upon ethical norms, society will disintegrate. Preservation of society forms the foundational apologetic for a secular social ethics- that outlines the various obligations and responsibilities of individuals with that society. The concern for moral life contributes to the well being of society and that fosters ones own participation in the good life. The ground for ethics is the self. The ethical life contributes to my own personal well being. I ought to act ethically because doing so is to my own benefit. Because the ethical life contributes to my personal well being-- my

personal participation in the good lifebeing ethical is the most reasonable way to live. It fits who we are as humans. Again reason is the basis for this judgment. The Christian perspective is different. For the Christian what governs his moral behavior is based on his reflection on the character and nature of God as revealed for us in the Scriptures. Christian ethics is the out working in life of the theological vision disclosed in and through the narrative given to us in the scriptures. The bible calls us to imitate Christ as his disciples to follow his example by yielding to the Holy Spirit who is poured out on the believing community to transform us into the Christlikenessthis involves character transformation.