Ethics — Complete Study Notes

Ethics — also called moral philosophy — studies human behaviour to work out what is right and wrong. This unit explains what "moral experience" actually means, what moral consciousness is, and surveys the big historical answers to the question: "By what norm do we judge an act to be good or bad?"

1.1 What Is Ethics?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies human behaviour and determines what is right and wrong conduct. It shows that humans have a spontaneous, natural awareness for telling right from wrong — this capacity is grounded in rationality. Ethics is not just a "positive science" describing how people behave; it is also a normative science, meaning it asks whether our moral conclusions can serve as objective standards for everyday living.

1.2–1.3 Moral Experience & Moral Consciousness

Moral Experience is a broad umbrella term covering moral consciousness, moral sense, moral sentiments, moral dilemmas, moral principles, and moral judgments — basically, everything involved in living a moral life. It includes psychological states (intentions, motives, will, reason), emotions (guilt, shame), beliefs and attitudes, and even virtue, character, habit, and freedom.

Many people use "moral experience" and "moral consciousness" as synonyms, but they are different:

• Experience is a generic term — anything that affects a person (an emotion, a memory, "knowledge experience"). Experiences pile up and form personality.
• Consciousness is the moment of awareness of one's own talents and potentials — mind, heart, and will. Human consciousness splits into three fields, each aimed at a distinct value: noetic consciousness (Truth), aesthetic consciousness (Beauty), and moral consciousness (Goodness/Rectitude).

1.4–1.5 Data for Moral Experience & Philosophical Analysis

What counts as "evidence" for moral experience? The most immediate data are actions everyone recognises as good (and does) or bad (and avoids). This rests on the age-old scholastic principle:

• Some good actions are absolute (always required), some conditional, some merely optional.
• A sense of obligation ("should"/"should not") arises from moral choice combined with freedom.
• Doing right brings satisfaction and social approval; doing wrong brings guilt and condemnation.

Philosophically, moral experience raises the question: what is its foundation? Humans, as dynamic, ever-becoming, free beings, are themselves the foundation of moral experience. Because humans are fundamentally social, interrelatedness — with other humans and (analogously) with the infra-human world of animals and plants — becomes the ontological foundation of the moral order. Some thinkers locate the ultimate foundation in God; others locate it in human relatedness and freedom alone.

1.6a Norm for Moral Judgment I — Teleological Theories

Once we accept that moral experience has a foundation, the next question is: what standard (norm) do we use to judge an act as good or bad? Historically, theories split into two families:

Teleological theories judge an act by its consequences or end-goal — mainly pleasure and happiness. They include ethical egoism (Epicurus, Hobbes), eudemonism (Aristotle), and ethical altruism/utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill).

1.6b Norm for Moral Judgment II — Deontological Theories

Deontological theories judge an act by whether it fulfils a duty, regardless of consequences. Some see the moral norm as coming from outside moral experience (extrinsic — Ockham's Divine Voluntarism, Durkheim's Moral Positivism); others see it as built into human nature itself (intrinsic — the Stoics, Shaftesbury, Kant, Aquinas, Suarez).

1.7–1.9 Moral Dilemmas, Moral Principles & Moral Sentiments

Moral Dilemmas

A moral dilemma occurs only when two moral reasons conflict with each other (not when a moral reason conflicts with a religious or aesthetic one). A moral reason is a requirement that it would be wrong not to act on — without adequate excuse.

Moral Principles

A moral principle is a statement that picks out a factor generally relevant to what ought to be done. Correctness of universal moral principles is a necessary condition for the correctness of particular moral judgments — without some ultimate moral principle, no moral judgment can be justified. (Note: a person "of principle" who rigidly ignores the complexity of a situation is contrasted with the "morality of sensibility," which stresses virtues like sympathy and integrity.)

Moral Sentiments

Moral sentiments are affective phenomena — feelings, dispositions, attitudes — closely tied to moral experience. Two broad camps:

• Cognitivists (e.g. Nussbaum, 2001) identify emotions with evaluative judgments.
• Non-cognitivists (e.g. William James, 1842–1910; Prinz, 2004) see emotions as felt experiences different in kind from beliefs/judgments — not properly assessable as "true" or "false."

Even Plato and Aristotle held that a well-formed soul requires harmony between its rational, desiderative, and appetitive parts — the latter being the seat of sentiments and emotions.

1.10 Dynamics of Moral Experience

Thinkers like Charles Darwin (1809–1882), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), and Sri Aurobindo (1872–1950) highlighted the dynamic, evolving nature of human consciousness — and therefore of the moral order. This raises the question: what stays constant in moral experience, and what is variable?

Virtues are the habits that shape human personality on its quest for happiness. This unit surveys the meaning of virtue, the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian conception of it, and how virtues (and vices) are understood in Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity.

2.2 Meaning of Virtue

The Greek word for virtue, aretē, meant "excellence of any kind" — but usually excellence belonging to the human person. The Latin virtus means "moral excellence." A virtue is a character trait valued as good; personal virtues promote individual and collective well-being. The opposite of virtue is vice.

In ethics, "virtue" has two related senses:

1. A quality of character — a disposition to do what is right.
2. A habit of action corresponding to that disposition.

Laird's Three Classes of Virtue

2.3 Socrates: Virtue Is Knowledge

For Socrates, virtue is humanity's deepest and most basic propensity, and that virtue is knowledge. If virtue is knowledge, it can be known — and taught. This is the meaning behind the imperative "know yourself."

Health, wealth, beauty, courage, and temperance are only good if guided by wisdom; guided by folly, they become forms of evil. This is why Socrates held that "no one does wrong knowingly" — wrongdoing is really a failure of knowledge.

2.4 Plato's Four Cardinal Virtues

The word "cardinal" comes from Latin cardo (a hinge) — these are the virtues on which moral life "hinges."

Justice is the founding and preserving virtue: once someone understands justice, the other three virtues can be attained — and justice is what holds all four together.

2.5 Aristotle's Conception of Virtue — The Golden Mean

For Aristotle, the moral end is eudaimonia (happiness) — the exercise of the soul in accordance with virtue. Virtue is a habit of choice, not a mere habit: it is the deliberate repeated choosing of the right action (e.g. doing right in the face of pain, repeated, becomes the virtue of courage).

2.6 Hindu Virtues

Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) describes three gunas (modes of material nature): Sattva (goodness, stillness, intelligence), Rajas (passion, activity), and Tamas (ignorance, inertia, destruction). Every person has a mix of all three; being in the mode of Sattva means following the virtues of Dharma.

Other Sattvic virtues include reverence for the Earth, universality (tolerance and respect for everyone), peace, and reverence for elders/teachers — the Guru being likened to God.

2.7 Virtues in Islam

The Qur'an is the repository of virtue in earthly form; the Prophet's hadiths are its exemplar in human form. "Islam" itself means "acceptance" — submission to the will of God. God's foremost attributes are mercy and compassion (Rahman and Rahim) — 113 of the Qur'an's 114 chapters open with "In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful."

Practical expressions of compassion include Zakat (obligatory almsgiving to the poor) and fasting (sawm) during Ramadan, which helps believers empathise with the hunger of the less fortunate.

2.8 Vices — The Opposite of Virtue

Vice is a habit considered immoral, depraved, or degrading — from the Latin vitium ("failing/defect"); the related word vicious literally means "full of vice." Common examples: substance abuse, gambling, recklessness, cheating, lying, selfishness.

Christian View of Vice

Christians distinguish two kinds of vice: those from physical/perverse instincts (like lust — less serious) and those from false idolatry in the spiritual realm (blasphemy, apostasy, despair, hatred, indifference — more serious). The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes vice (a habit inclining one to sin) from sin itself (an individual wrong act) — Aquinas taught that "the sin surpasses the vice in wickedness." Vice, once created by repeated sin, can only be removed by repeatedly resisting temptation and performing virtuous acts instead.

Dante's Seven Deadly Vices

Before we can judge whether an act is good or bad, we must understand what a "human act" actually is. This unit builds up the concept step by step: what distinguishes a human act from a mere biological act, what obstacles can weaken its voluntariness, what factors decide its morality, and how free is the human will really?

3.2 "Human Act" vs "Act of Man"

Scholastic philosophy distinguishes:

Acts of humans (like circulation of blood) are shared with animals, are beyond our control, and are therefore involuntary and not morally responsible. A true Human Act proceeds from knowledge and the consent of free will — the person could have chosen differently. It is put forth by the will, drawn by the goodness of an object as presented by the intellect, and issues from the will's own determination without necessity.

3.3 The Two Constituent Elements

Both must be present: the intellect proposes the good, the will freely chooses it. If a person is compelled to act against their will (e.g. under a mentally compulsive urge), the act is not fully voluntary and not, strictly, a human act. Note also: not everything willed is an effect of the will — e.g. desiring a fire that one did not cause. An act is truly voluntary only when the object is both willed and caused by the will.

3.3 The Process of a Voluntary Act

A voluntary act is not a spontaneous reaction — it is a dynamic mental process:

Where there's no conflict of motives, choice is easy. Where motives compete, the mind deliberates on merits/demerits, selects the strongest motive (decision), and either acts immediately or postpones it (needing resolution — the capacity to stay committed). The final bodily act produces changes in the world — some foreseen, some unforeseen.

3.4 Impediments to Human Acts

Certain obstacles don't destroy the human act entirely, but they reduce imputability/culpability — how responsible the person is.

3.5 Three Factors Determining the Morality of an Act

Example: the object of setting fire to a slum-dweller's hut is "to burn," but the end might be revenge — these can differ. A good intention can improve an act that is good in itself (e.g. helping someone start a business, meaning to make them independent); but a good end can never redeem an act that is evil in its object.

3.6 Determinism vs Indeterminism

Is the human will truly free? Kant called freedom "the stone of stumbling for all empiricists, but the key to the loftiest practical principles for critical moralists."

Two attempts at a middle path:

• Soft Determinism: humans are free from external coercion but cannot choose against their own character — free physically, determined psychologically. (Criticism: can we really call this "free"?)
• Self-Determinism: nothing happens without a cause, but our free acts are caused by ourselves as self-governing agents — we could always have chosen otherwise. Humans are influenced by motives but not necessitated by them.

A norm is a rule or standard for judgement — it lets us compare a human act against a "yardstick" and decide whether it's good or bad. This unit covers Conscience as the subjective norm, and Intuition, Law, and Pleasure as the three objective norms.

4.2 What Is a Norm? — Basic Understanding

A norm or criterion is a Standard of Judgement — a rule by which principles, facts, statements, and conduct are tested to form a correct judgement. In ethics, a moral criterion lets us discriminate between morally good and morally evil, and judge a particular act accordingly. There are two broad kinds:

Five Qualifications a True Norm Must Have

1. Unchangeable — a fluctuating norm gives no reliable certainty.
2. Universal — applies to everybody, no exemptions.
3. Accessible to all — everyone must be able to know its fundamental principles.
4. Applicable to all conditions of life — within mental reach in every situation.
5. A single standard — one norm for all persons and actions, since human nature is the same for all.

4.3 Conscience — The Subjective Norm

Conscience traces moral authority within the individual — an "inner voice." Mahatma Gandhi described it exactly this way.

Antecedent vs Consequent Conscience

Types of Conscience (by Accuracy of Judgement)

4.4 Intuition as Norm

An intuition is the immediate apprehension of an object by the mind, without any reasoning process. A moral intuition apprehends moral objects immediately — no argument needed.

Three Objects of Moral Intuition

1. Perceptional / Individual Intuitionism — we know directly that one particular act is right/wrong (e.g. Brutus's assassination of Caesar) without implying a general rule.
2. Dogmatic Intuitionism — we know directly that a whole class of actions is right/wrong (e.g. telling the truth is always right).
3. Universal Intuitionism — we know directly a universal principle for judging actions (e.g. treating a person merely as a means is always wrong).

4.5 Law as Norm

Law is one of the most important norms of morality — it controls human judgement from outside. Aquinas's classic definition:

Four causes of law, from this definition:

• Formal cause — "Ordinance of reason": a directive demanding a definite course; must not command anything contrary to reason.
• Final cause — "Common good": aims at the whole community's welfare, not private interest.
• Material cause — "Promulgation": the law must actually be published/announced.
• Efficient cause — "The one who has care of the community": only the legitimate bearer of public authority can enact it.

Kinds of Law

4.6 Pleasure as Norm — Hedonism

From the Greek hedone ("pleasure"). Hedonism teaches that pleasure is the only mark of a good life and every human activity is prompted by a desire for it.

Natural law claims that moral norms are grounded in unchanging human nature itself and are discoverable by reason, without needing revelation. This unit explains the ethical phenomenon behind it, how it relates to human dignity and intrinsic evil, and the major criticisms levelled against it.

5.2 The Ethical or Moral Phenomenon

By natural reason, humans distinguish good from bad. The "ought" character of the good is the most basic (primordial) ethical phenomenon — good urges us toward what ought to be; bad pulls the opposite way.

Whoever grasps the ratio boni also grasps the supreme norm of natural law: "good is to be done, evil is to be avoided." This light of the good is available to all people.

5.3 Defining Natural Law

The supreme principle of ethics: "good is to be done and evil to be avoided." Every individual law of natural law participates in the reasonability of this one supreme principle.

Natural law presupposes a common, constant human nature — practical reason discovers natural law rather than inventing it, because it is grounded in the very structure of being human. Unlike emotivism (morality as mere emotion), natural law is based on the being of man. It expresses the minimum requirements for being an ethical subject: freedom and reason.

Thomistic Natural Law — Three Levels of Inclination

Aquinas combines natural reason with the natural inclinations humans have toward a fulfilled life:

According to ethicist Eberhard Schockenhoff, practical reason is neither a mere "ratifying agent" of the inclinations nor their master shaping raw material arbitrarily — rather, reason and inclination form one unity: "reason is like a music conductor who fine-tunes the inclinations," or an author transforming a rough draft into a coherent book.

5.4 Reason and Morality

We obey a law because it is reasonable. Aquinas held that the regula et mensura (rule and measure) of human acts is reason itself — an immoral act is simply one that contradicts reason.

Both are faculties of the same soul, complementary rather than subordinate to each other.

5.5–5.6 Universality & Change

Only the top-most principles of practical reason (do good/avoid evil; the golden rule; love of neighbour; the negative Decalogue laws) are universally valid for all. Secondary, concrete norms — derived from these — can admit of exceptions because situations are contingent and diverse.

Natural law is opposed to historicism (the view that humans are purely products of their evolving history, with no fixed nature). Nature and history are not opposed — human nature manifests itself differently across cultures and eras (the cave-dweller's humanity looks different from the city-dweller's) — but the underlying nature stays essentially the same beneath all these historical forms.

5.7–5.8 Natural Law, Human Dignity & Intrinsic Evil

There is a core, untouchable sector in every human being — the person — which morality exists to protect. The minimum requirements of natural law are the minimum requirements of human dignity and rights, universal and demandable from any person or government. Human rights are, historically, a manifestation of the principles of practical reason.

Classic examples given in the text: rape, murder of the innocent, torture, breach of promise, and sexual infidelity in marriage. The innocent have an inalienable right not to be used merely as a means to some greater social good — even if refusing to violate that right leads to worse consequences (e.g. refusing to kill one innocent person even though "the enemy" might then kill many more).

Schockenhoff notes that teleologism (judging by consequences) cannot really defend the idea of intrinsic evil, while deontologism (judging by duty) can. His conclusion: teleologism is fine for deciding about non-human goods, but when human dignity is at stake, deontologism is absolutely necessary — otherwise there is no firm ground to resist terrorists or blackmailers who justify harming the innocent "for the greater good."

5.9 Criticism of Natural Law — and Responses