Anthony Weston. A Practical Companion to Ethics

 

This is an outline for thinking about key points in the text and some ideas and terms that are related to materials in the text. You need to understand the terms and be able to explain them and also be able to write an informative essay on some of the questions in preparing for exams. Material from the texts will be on the exams even if not covered in class. You may raise questions [indeed, are strongly encouraged to raise questions, objections, etc concerning the text material in class. You will be given priority over whatever else is being presented in class.]

 

NOTE that not all examples suggested come from text – also some other ideas and comments may be added to supplement reading and thinking about the text.

 

The link below takes you to some sources for ethical issues. These include videos, written sources, etc. However, the link is somewhat erratic at times in linking up to pages.

 

Ethics Updates Home Page   

 

 

1)      Stating the obvious? Note that often what is said will make good sense and seem to state the obvious. However, the question is whether this is a part of your basic thinking in practice. Thus, ask yourself if and when you have or have not applied some of the ideas presented and why.

2)    What is ethics? values? morals?

a)      Note role of action cf thought/expectation in trying to distinguish

3)      Why use term “practical”? Note link as well as difference between theoretical and practical but also what characterizes each as separate matters.

4)      What is meant by “this book is concerned with the heart?”

5)      What routes [useful and not useful routes] to thinking about ethics?

a)      instinct?

b)      mindful thinking

c)      dogmatism

d)      speaking and thinking in an open-ended way – avoid easy labels [liberal, right-winger, etc]

e)      rationalizing

f)        defensive reaction

g)      appeals to authority

·        religious

--who interprets? Bible and homosexuality?

--not in the text here but relevant is the long-standing debate over what is called historicism and now postmodernism where all ideas seen as encased in interpretations from their time and social life – you can find extensive comments on the nature of postmodernism and hermeneutics [hermeneutics started from concern over how the Bible is interpreted] at my Web page of terms: Philosophical Terms

·        political/military

--superior orders defense

·        tradition

--which one?

--who sets?

--when does change take place and how?

·        appeal to rules [the fancy word for this is deontology – you need not get deeply into this but may wish to see extensive comment on this at my Web page: Philosophical Terms

--Kant and categorical imperative leads to this. If interested see “categorical imperative” at Philosophical Terms

--to lie is always wrong? If not the rule then what rule for being justified to violate the rule?

·        consequentialism [utilitarianism] –See definitions at Philosophical Terms

·        All the above can be confusing – how to choose? Cannot escape choosing!! So, how do you do it?

6)      Why the comment that struggle and uncertainty are part of ethics?

a)      Doesn’t mention “right/wrong” or “good/bad” – are these built into his indications of key terms?

7)      It’s all relative?? No, there are absolutes?? The age-old debate. Which side do you come down on and why?

a)      diverse values

b)      common values

c)      examples:

·        role of women in various cultures

·        capital punishment

·        your own example

d) is skepticism relativism?

8)      Can you “Mind your own business” in society? What role of ethics here?

9)      Weston’s exercise at p. 12 calls for making an argument for the other side in order to gain an understanding of it. This is not bad practice – try it!

10)  Creative Problem Solving: Note how Weston seeks to open up more avenues of thinking than we might normally use such as;

a)      not accepting dilemmas as such always [hence, a false dilemma] and looking for options

b)      working beyond regular assumptions and habits – brainstorming

c)      the intermediate possible

d)      reframing problems [Thomas Kuhn’s book on the stultifying effect of paradigms even on the best of scientists is a must read for students sometime during their educational c ideas involve environmental careers]

e)      opportunism – a problem is an opportunity

f)        [not in text] NOTE the kind of political problems one might encounter to which one might apply some of these such as (economic growth but conservation or jobs vs environment “dilemmas” or free speech vs. hate literature ban on campus or genetic research with good fall-outs (remedy Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes)  vs. horror possibilities or ethical challenges such as “choosing” what type of child you want. What others can you think of? ---- in text: what to do with a convicted murderer or finding a middle ground in abortion debate – what possibilities?

g)      Don’t polarize issues but ask “What is each side right about?” – If “right” exists on both sides can we make a decision? Can we integrate values and move from win/lose scenario? – How might this apply re: assisted suicide debate? How about the “owl vs. man” debate?

h)      Weston asks: “Can you think of any considered moral position that is just flat-out completely wrong, with nothing redeeming to be said about it? – Can you?

i)        Must we compromise in the sense of splitting the difference or is their a middle way?

11)  Ethics with a heart – what is this? What is ethics without a heart?

a)      project selves into the other [some theorists refer to “reversibility”, the Biblical “do unto other” and the Kantian moral imperative have some affinity with this although the latter is more legal/rights oriented and the former two more sentiment/empathetic oriented]

b)      note carefully Josiah Royce’s comment, especially the last sentence: “So, dimly and by instinct hast thou lived with thy neighbor, and hast known him not, being blind. Thou hast made [of him] a thing, no Self at all.” [Much of contemporary democratic theory today has some reference to “the other” in the context of determining what is just and democratic. Sometimes the phrase is “the marginalized other.”] ---[In extreme cases this comes into play in instances of torture or genocide or ethnic cleansing. But one can find it also in basic dealings with one another in bureaucratic processes with immigrants or with persons on welfare.]

c)      Weston doesn’t refer to the book Habits of the Heart but it is excellent for thinking about this topic. It has a communal emphasis rather than an individualistic one.

d)      stereotypes and problems with the heart

e)      how wide can the heart operate? – the Sudan ? how broad of an identity can we have?

f)        only humans? nature? animals?

12)  Do something! What is Weston urging here?

The power point presentation below contains much of the above with a few differences.

 

Ethics:

      What is ethics?

      What link to "values“

      What link to "moral" ideas?

 

How do ideologies fit into “thinking”?

      Thiel definition

      what are some examples?

      knee-jerk approach?

      useful? necessary?

      what alternatives?

 

      "For our purposes, we might define ideology as a set of coherent beliefs and values about history, nature, psychology, and society that conceptually and practically orders and organizes collective life. Importantly, ideologies are not simply any set of beliefs and values. The term ideology pertains only to those beliefs and values systematically connected to each other within some coherent scheme that reinforces and is reinforced by relations of power within society."

Some ethical decision-making approaches

  Benhabib’s novel and thoughtful approach   

      ethical cognitivism – Benhabib

      ethical rationalism cf cognitivism

vdisembodied cf embodied decisions

 

 

      Benhabib: "By 'ethical cognitivism' I understand the view that ethical judgments and principles have a cognitively articulable kernel and that they are neither mere statements of preference nor mere statements of taste. They imply validity claims of the sort, ' X is right' (where X refers to a principle of action or a moral judgment) means that 'I can justify to you with good grounds why one ought to respect, uphold, agree with X.' In this sense, ethical cognitivism is opposed to ethical decisionism that reduces such principles and judgments to an 'I will' which cannot be further questioned.

 

      By 'ethical rationalism,' by contrast, I mean a theoretical position which views moral judgments as the core of moral theory, and which neglects that the moral self is not a moral geometrician but an embodied, finite, suffering and emotive being. We are not being rational but we acquire rationality through contingent process of socialization and identity formation."

Routes [useful/not useful] to thinking about ethics? [ Weston]

 

  avoid dogmatism

  speaking and thinking in an open-ended way

  avoid easy labels [liberal, right-winger, etc]

  avoid rationalizing

 

 

[routes to thinking about ethics cont.]

  instinct?  -- intuitionism? –E.G., Rosen

  mindful thinking  -- rationalism?

   Habermas: classical rationalism

   Habermas: counterfactual/power communication

 

 

      Stanley Rosen: The general argument is that analyses or interpretation or conceptual structures cannot be validated by analyses or interpretation or structures, but only by some intuition of what is not, and what is prior to, such interpretations; by ordinary human experience.”

 

      Habermas: "'Rationalization' as it pertains to purposive-rational actions means increasing efficiency or the consistency of 'rational' choices. This is the type of rationalization that has been privileged by neo-classical economists and those influence by models of economic rationality."

 

      Habermas's words means something radically different: "Rationalization here means extirpating those relations of force that are inconspicuously set in the very structures of communication and that prevent conscious settlement of conflicts....Rationalization means overcoming such systematically distorted communication in which action supporting consensus concerning the reciprocally raised validity claims...can be sustained in appearance only, that is counterfactually."

[routes to thinking about ethics cont.]

Appeal to authority

  religious

   Which Bible/Koran, etc.?

   Who interprets?

   Homosexuality “correctly” interpreted?
   Jihad “correctly” interpreted?

      ---note role of “interpretation that happens in an unconscious fashion as indicated by historicism and now postmodernism : Philosophical Terms

[routes to thinking about ethics cont.]

  Political/military authority

   --superior orders defense

  Tradition

   Which one?

   Who decides? Majority control?

   How does change take place?

   Edmund Burke – classical conservatism

 

 

[routes to thinking about ethics cont.]

      appeal to rules [the fancy word for this is deontology – you need not get deeply into this but may wish to see extensive comment on this at my Web page: Philosophical Terms ]

      consequentialism [utilitarianism] –See definitions at Philosophical Terms

 

 

      Sandel indicates what is meant by comparing with two other terms often used in philosophy" "The contrast might also be drawn in terms of two different senses of deontology. In its moral sense, deontology opposes consequentialism; it describes a first-order ethic containing certain categorical duties and prohibitions which take unqualified precedence over other moral and practical concerns. In its foundational sense, deontology opposes teleology; it describes a form of justification in which first principles are derived in a way that does not presuppose any final human purposes or ends, nor any determinate conception of the human good."

 

      "It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist normative theories, correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences

 

      All the above can be confusing – how to choose? Cannot escape choosing!! So, how do you do it?

 

What role for moral ideas in politics -- the liberal-communitarian debate. Right before the good?