EDUCATION PSYCHOLOGY-3- DEFINITION AND CONCEPTUAL DIMENSION OF ETHICS
1.1 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUALISATIONS:
Morality and Ethics: Do they mean the same?
The terms morals and ethics are closely related in their original meanings. The former comes from the Latin moralis, and the latter from the Greek ethos. Both mean “the custom or way of life.” Modern usage of morality refers to conduct itself and ethics (or moral philosophy) to the study of moral conduct. We speak of “a moral act” and “an ethical code.” The word right comes from the Latin rectus, meaning “straight” or “in line.” It implies conformity to some standard. The term good applies to that which has desirable qualities, satisfies some need, or has value for human beings.
MORALITY: means the customs, the special do-s and don't-s that are shared and widely accepted as standard in a society or community of people — accepted as a basis of life that doesn't have to be rationally questioned.
OR; Morality refers to society rules of conduct describing what people ought and ought not to do in various situations.
ETHICS: is the philosophical reflection upon rules and ways of living together, the customs and habits of individuals, groups or mankind in a society of community.
OR; is the philosophical study of morality, a rational examination into people's moral beliefs and behavior. Ethics therefore encompasses the whole range of human action including personal preconditions.
CATEGORIES OF ETHICS
Today it is common to separate ethics into three sub-branches: descriptive ethics, meta-ethics (Analytical Ethics) and normative ethics.
1. Descriptive ethics/ Comparative Ethics this sub-branch of ethics focuses at empirically and precisely mapping/ describing existing morality or moralities within communities and is therefore linked to the field of social sciences like anthropology, sociology, psychology, and History. Another aim is to explain the development of existing moralities from a historical perspective. Normative prescriptions are intended.
2. Normative ethics means the methodological reflection upon morality tackling its critique and its rationale. Norms and standards for acting and conduct are being set up or tore down, and argued for or against. It involves substantive proposal concerning how to act, live, behave conduct ourselves in our respective communities or professional communities. It involves dressing, speaking and the like. When “ethics” is talked about in a common sense then we are talking about this general normative ethics. When enquiry is directed towards the principles of moral judgment or the criteria for the ethical analysis of morality, then we talk about fundamental ethics. Finally in the realm of normative ethics, there is applied ethics. Here normative theories are applied to specific, controversial moral issues like animal rights, abortion, euthanasia etc. − generating the classic so called hyphen-ethics, e.g. bio-ethics, medical
In relation to normative ethics, teaching is unique so does teachers. Thus teaching is a moral undertaking and so teachers must be ethical. Teachers are there to defend the basic moral principles.
Meta-ethics is a relatively new discipline in the ethical arena and its definition is the most blurred/vague of all. The Greek meta means after or beyond and indicates that the object of meta-ethical studies is morality and ethics itself. The aim is to better understand the logical, semantic and pragmatic structures of moral and ethical argumentation as such, their origin and meaning. Other fields of inquiry are e.g. whether morality exists independently of humans, and the underlying mental basis of human judgments and conduct.
RATIONALE FOR TEACHERS TO STUDY ETHICS
1. Since teaching is a moral profession, teachers therefore must be moral model. If teachers are immoral it is likely that students too will be immoral consequently the whole society. So the study of ethics for teachers is important for instilling them with ethical principles.
2. Ethics deepens teachers’ understanding/ reflection on the ultimate questions in life. For example, why should I treat students fairly? Why should I moral?
3. The studies of ethics sharpen teachers’ general thinking, process and thus it develops an enquiry on their daily practices.
4. Ethics knowledge helps teachers to pursue goodness, fairness and being impartial/moral.
5. The study of ethics is important due to wide spread of immoral practices and unethical issues in our communities.
CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TERM ETHICS AND MORALITIES ARE USED
The terms ethics and moralities are widely used in the following contexts;
FAMILY LEVEL
Ones ethics and conducts must start at home. Individuals are the way they are because of the roles played by parents and/or guardians at home. However as a result of the peer influence ones conduct may change. Since ethics is all about the development of human character then the better place to begin their development is in the family. At family level a child learn how to respect people, greetings, tolerance, love and kindness. Parents are always discouraging immoral practices.
SCHOOL/COLLEGE
In this context people learn ethics or issues related to moralities, impartiality, valuing work, respect, fairness, punctuality and responsibilities as well. Teachers are responsible for imparting ethics into students. Examples, through Civics students learn respect, human rights, moral values, patriotism, accountability and transparency as well as cooperation.
WORK PLACE
Different fields have their ethics related to their fields. At school or college teachers are supposed to be punctual, fair, respectful to their colleague.
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
All religions have ethical components. From religious institution people are internalized with ethical principles. For instance, the Christians have to adhere to ten ethical principles referred to as Ten Commandments. For the Muslims, ethics are drawn from stories drawn from Quran they are commonly referred to as Hadith.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORALITIES
There are three stages/levels through which morality is developed
1. INSTINCT
The innate/inherited behavior, here the moral conduct that appears right to an individual is the conduct determined by his or her fundamental needs or instincts. So the decision as to whether something is right or not is determined by ones needs or instincts.
2. CUSTOM
Here the moral conduct that appears right to an individual is the conduct in accordance to a group which he or she belongs. Ones conduct may be seem to be right or wrong in accordance to the setting one belongs or is.
3. CONSCIENCE
Here the conduct that is judged to be right or wrong to an individual is that which is approved by his or her own judgment of what is right or wrong. The moral authority is within an individual. It is the inner voice which directs a person to take or not to take an action.
MORALITY AND ETHICS IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
Forms of Indigenous Education in Tanzania
Indigenous education was delivered in two forms; informal and formal, though greater portion of it was informal, being acquired from birth to death. Education grows out of the environment and the learning process was directly related to the pattern of work in the society.
i. Formal aspects of traditional indigenous education were in a specific programme and a deliberately planned pattern of learning. Such programmes of learning were restricted to certain periods in the life of the individual, notably, the period of initiation.
Many indigenous societies had and still do have circumcision ceremonies for males or for both sexes. Example Maasai, Wakurya, et cetera.
The length of the time involved could vary from a few weeks to several years (Rodney 1981). Special teachers were carefully selected to teach the young depending on who, what, why, how and where it was to be taught or learned. They had to be men and women of great knowledge, experience, and integrity. Usually, they performed their duties voluntarily.
Formal education was also revealed on the occasion of passing from one age-grade to another e.g. among the Maasai. Therefore formal learning took place in organized learning groups, in fixed places and under the guidance of the recognized and acceptable instructors.
ii. Informal aspects: this was a kind of teaching and learning that took place in different informal settings. Learners were acquired knowledge through experience, nurturing by family/families, community or workplace. Wherever people live informal education takes place. They normally learn new knowledge, skills, and social habits, economic and political interactions of members of their respective families, clans, or societies.
It was the problems/needs which determined the content to be learnt
Goals of Indigenous Education
The following were the cardinal goals of Indigenous education:
►To develop Childs latent (dormant/hidden/underlying) skills.
►To develop good character
►To inculcate respect for elders and those in position of authority.
►To develop intellectual skills-i.e mental abilities, thinking skills that are involving brain.
►To acquire specific vocational training and to develop a healthy attitude towards honest of labour.
►To develop a sense of belonging and participate actively in family and community affairs.
►To understand, appreciate and promote the cultural heritage of the community at large.
The Curriculum of Indigenous Education in Tanzania
Curriculum can simply be the course of study or the package of learning system comprising activities and subjects which have got to be learnt and taught in the process of schooling. The curriculum of indigenous consisted of the following contents:
Language: Oral literature was given more emphasize in the curriculum. Language was the first skill to learn after birth. In different places language was used for identifying people within the society thus people were brought up to love and honor their native languages (Berry, 1970).
Environment: In the context of environment children were taught how to deal with their environment. The purpose of this was that, they should know how to get the best things out of it as this environment was quite difficult to live those days (Ssekamwa 1997). Thus, what learners learnt differed from one society with another depending on the nature of the environments a learner was living.
Cooperation: Here children were taught how to cooperate with their friends, neighbours and other members of the society. This was taught through games, plays, idioms, proverbs and folk stories. This helped in taking part in creating and maintaining common services in their areas and defending themselves and the whole tribe. Cooperation was insisted all over the society because the environment needed collective effort to live it. There were many different stories told in different tribes insisting on how bad it was not to cooperate with others.
Discipline: Discipline was one of the teachings in Indigenous education because it was necessary for good order in a tribe. Children were insisted to obey customs and regulations of the tribe. They were also taught to behave, respect all people, to restrain themselves in pleasure, anger, pain and any extremes in life.
Moral education: This item in curriculum was meant to teach their children how to behave in an acceptable manner. The teachings were about good conduct, wisdom, politeness, respects for others, respect for self, protocol formula, maintenance of values of the society. Other teachings were based on the practice of hygiene, how to greet people of different categories in an acceptable manner, be grateful, help others, and give excuse when they wrong others, how to eat and drink decently and many others which helped in bringing up children. The result of knowledge taught to young people made the society to produce people who had basic knowledge, practical skills and good manners.
Skills: Under skills children were taught all the basic and necessary skills. For example boys were taught building houses, skinning animals for meat, dressing chicken for eating, using spears, arrows and shields, pottery making and rearing animals.
Girls were on the other hand were taught baby nursing, cooking food, looking after the home, proper behaviour in marriage, mending clothes, making mats and baskets and many others.
MORAL ISSUES IN THE CURRICULUM AFRICAN INDIGENEOUS EDUCATION
Moral values were central to indigenous education. The traditional African education concentrated on good manners, obedience, and strong sense of responsibility and respect for others. Showing that moral education given higher priority, in other aspects, children were taught based on sex but when it came to moral values everyone regardless of sex was to be there.
Moral issues related to sex were taught by uncles for boys and aunts for girls. Anyone who committed sexual malpractice was severely punished.
Citizenship education was taught as part and parcel of moral education. African families in their respective families, clans had time, opportunity and context to learn much about political, social, and moral conducts. Such kind of education was important tool for exposing children to become key future members of their societies.
METHODS USED TO PROMOTE MORAL VALUES TO CHILDREN IN AFRICAN INDIGENEOUS EDUCATION
1. IMMITATION AND HANDS ON PRACTICE
Children and other members learned by seeing what and how parents behave. Every adult was to be a moral model so that children could learn from him/her.
2. VERBAL ADMONITION
Verbal warning and canning formed important parts of moral methods among most indigenous communities. Children were either warned verbally or canned whenever they did something considered by the society immoral.
3. DRAMA (ROLE PLAYING)
Moral values were sometimes taught through dramatization or role playing. Both boys and girls played an important role in teaching and learning morals.
4. STORY TELLING
It was also a common method used to promote moral values. Children were given stories on how misbehaved people were treated. The aim was to threaten children so that they would not repeat same behaviour.
5. SAYING/PROVERBS EXPRESSIONS
Different societies had different sayings and proverbs aimed at strengthening ethical behaviour among members of particular societies.
BASES OF MORAL UNDERTAKING (why people were to be moral)
1. Traditional code of practice. Each society had its set of rules to be followed by all members.
2. Divine power of God (ancestors) people believed that good conduct is obedient to God.
3. The Golden rule (Kantian Ethics) in pre-colonial societies morals were grounded to golden rule of reciprocity which states that “treat people the way you want them to treat you” indigenous societies believed that every member was responsible to treat another the way he/she would like to be treated.
LESSON
1. In the past every adult was responsible for moral education in the development of the children and every member of the society was to be a moral model/exemplar.
2. Moral conduct/Ethical conduct did not operate in a vacuum or isolation but it was part and parcel of day to day social, political and economic accomplishment.
3. Women played a vital role to moral development of the children although it is said that every adult member in a society had a responsibility to children’s moral values development. No way can people undermine the role/contribution of women since time immemorial on children’s moral promotion or development.
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES (MORAL PHILOSOPHERS)
Various philosophers have contributed greatly in the field of morality and ethics. Some of the philosophers and their perspectives are described as follows:
1. DEMOCRITUS
This was the Greek atomists. He taught that “the goal of life is HAPPINESS”. This being the case, all people men and women should strive for HAPPINESS. Democritus warns that people should not depend upon material things such as cars, houses, good salary and others for happiness because such material things come and go thus their presence may lead to happiness but their absence may cause UNHAPPINESS. Thus, he states that happiness should be the state of inner man but not by material things. It should be a balance of life. It should be an attitude which combines reflection and reasoning.
To Democritus goodness is not only a matter of action but depended upon man’s inner desire that is a good man is not one who does good but one who wants to do goodness at all times.
2. PROTAGORAS
In his writings he indicated that man is the measure of all things thus man is the measure of good and evil.
According to the Sophists “by man” the sophists meant the “individual man” but not in general term. Each one has the right to determine for him/her on what is good or evil. One cannot judge another to be right or wrong, good or bad. Thus, they simply contend that there is no moral laws, no principle of right and wrong and so each man had to live as he/she desires. Each one had to get each and everything by any means (each man has to form his/her code of conduct). The result of the Sophists argument was individualism and selfishness and moral chaos.
3. SOCRATES
He was stimulated by the Sophists but he was not willing to support them. He was mostly interested in the problem of living a good life. A great deal of his teaching based on the meaning and wrong. He believed that there must be the basic principles of right and wrong a measure which will apply far beyond the belief of an individual.
To Socrates, the answer for questions like what is good and what is the highest good by which we can measure and what is the measure of goodness is “KNOWLEDGE” because if an individual is knowledgeable of what is good he/she will do it. So he believed that people do bad things because they are not informed of such things. He argued that GOOD LIFE is to equip people with knowledge that will help them to discover what is good and what is bad.
4. PLATO
Reasoning is the highest good.
ETHICAL THEORIES
The formal study of ethics goes back at least 2,400 years, to the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates did not put any of his philosophy in writing, but his student Plato did. In Plato's dialogue called the Crito, imprisoned Socrates uses ethical reasoning to explain why he ought to face an unjust death penalty rather than take advantage of an opportunity to flee into exile with his family. In the past two millennia, philosophers have proposed many ethical theories. 1. Relativism Moral Theory
Relativism is the theory that holds that there are no universal moral norms of right and wrong. Different individuals or groups of people can have completely opposite views of a moral problem, and both can be right. Two particular kinds of relativism we'll discuss are subjective relativism and cultural relativism.
Subjective relativism holds that each person decides right and wrong for himself or herself. This notion is captured in the popular expression "What's right for you may not be right for me."
The Case (Strengths) for Subjective Relativism
1. Well-meaning and intelligent people can have totally opposite opinions about moral issues.
For example, consider the issue of legalized abortion in the United States. There are a significant number of rational people on each side of the issue. The reason people cannot reach the same conclusion is that morality is not like gravity; it is not something "out there" that rational people can discover and try to understand. Instead, each of us creates his or her own morality.
2. Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless.
Going back to the example of abortion, the debate in the United States has been going on for more than 30 years. An agreement about whether abortion is right or wrong may never be reached. Nobody is all-knowing. When faced with a difficult moral problem, who is to say which side is correct? If morality is relative, we do not have to try to reconcile opposing views. Both sides are right.
The Case (criticism) against Subjective Relativism
1. With subjective relativism the line between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do is not sharply drawn.
People are good at rationalizing their bad behavior. Subjective relativism provides an ideal last line of defense for someone whose conduct is being questioned. When pressed to explain a decision or action, a subjective relativist can reply, "Who are you to tell me what I should and should not do?" If morality means doing whatever you want to do, it doesn't mean much, if it means anything at all.
2. By allowing each person to decide right and wrong for himself or herself, subjective relativism makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people.
The fact is that some people have caused millions to suffer, while others have led lives of great service to humanity. Suppose both Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa spent their entire lives doing what they thought was the right thing to do. Do you want to give both of them credit for living good lives?
Modification of the original formulation of subjective relativism might be: "I can decide what's right for me, as long as my actions don't hurt anybody else."
3. Subjective relativism and tolerance are two different things.
Some people may be attracted to relativism because they believe in tolerance. There is a lot to be said for tolerance. It allows individuals in a pluralistic society like the Tanzania to live in harmony. However, tolerance is not the same thing as subjective relativism. Subjective relativism holds that individuals decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. If you are a tolerant person, is it okay with you if some people decide they want to be intolerant? What if a person decides that he will only deal fairly with people of his own racial group? Note that any statement of the form "People ought to be tolerant" is an example of universal moral norm, or rule.
Relativism is based on the idea that there are no universal moral norms, so a blanket statement about the need for tolerance is incompatible with subjective relativism.
4. We should not give legitimacy to an ethical theory that allows people to make decisions based on something other than reason.
If individuals decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, they can reach their conclusions by any means they see fit. If your goal is to persuade others that your solutions to actual moral problems are correct, adopting subjective relativism is self-defeating because it is based on the idea that each person decides for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong. According to ethical relativism, nobody's conclusions are any more valid than anyone else's, no matter how these conclusions are drawn. Therefore, we reject subjective relativism as a workable ethical theory.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is the ethical theory contends that the meaning of "right" and "wrong" rests with a society's actual moral guidelines. These guidelines vary from place to place and from time to time. Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars conducted a modern study that reveals how notions of right and wrong vary widely from one society to another. People under cultural relativism if asked why they act in a certain way in certain cases, they always answer that it is because they and their ancestors always have done so...
The Case (Strengths) for Cultural Relativism
1. Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines.
It's unrealistic to assume that the same set of moral guidelines can be expected to work for all human societies in every part of the world for all ages. People must change their ideas about what is acceptable conduct and what is not, or they will destroy the planet.
2. It is arrogant for one society to judge another.
Anthropologists have documented many important differences among societies with respect to what they consider proper and improper moral conduct. We may have more technology than people in other societies, but we are no more intelligent than they are. It is arrogant for a person living in twenty-first-century America to judge the actions of another person who lived in Peru in the fifteenth century.
Morality is reflected in actual behavior.
We often find people saying that certain actions are wrong, but then they do them anyway. Some parents tell their children, "Do as I say, not as I do." Looking at the actual behavior of people (their defacto values) gives a truer picture of what a society believes is right and wrong than listening to their hypothetical discussions about how they ought to behave.
The Case (criticism) against Cultural Relativism
1. Just because two societies do have different views about right and wrong doesn’t imply that they ought to have different views.
Perhaps one society has good guidelines and another has bad guidelines. Perhaps neither society has good guidelines. Suppose two societies are suffering from a severe drought. The first society constructs an aqueduct to carry water to the affected cities. The second society makes human sacrifices to appease the rain god. Are both "solutions" equally acceptable?
No, they are not. Yet, if we accept cultural relativism, we cannot speak out against this wrongdoing, because no person in one society can make any statements about the morality of another society.
Cultural relativism does not explain how an individual determines the moral guidelines of a particular society.
Suppose I am new to a society and I understand I am supposed to abide by its moral guidelines. How do I determine what those guidelines are? One approach would be to poll other people, but this begs the question. Here's why. Suppose I ask other people whether the society considers a particular action to be morally acceptable. I'm not interested in knowing whether they personally feel the action is right or wrong. I want them to tell me whether the society as a whole thinks the action is moral. That puts the people I poll in the same position I'm in trying to determine the moral guidelines of a society. How are they to know whether the action is right or wrong?
Perhaps the guidelines are summarized in the society's laws, but laws take time to enact. Hence the legal code reflects at best the moral guidelines of the same society at some point in the past, but that's not the same society I am living in today, because the morals of any society change over time. That leads us to our next objection.
Cultural relativism does not do a good job of characterizing actions when moral guidelines evolve.
Until the 1960s many southern American states had segregated universities. Today these universities are integrated. This change in attitudes was accelerated by the actions of a few brave people of color who challenged the status quo and enrolled in universities that had been the exclusive preserve of white students. At the time these students were doing what they "ought not" to have done; they were doing something wrong according to the moral guidelines of the time. By today's standards, they did nothing wrong, and many people view them as heroic figures. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that their actions were the right thing to do all along?
Cultural relativism provides no framework for reconciliation between cultures in conflict.
Think about the culture of the poverty-stricken Palestinians who have been crowded into refugee camps in the Gaza Strip for the past 50 years. Many of these people are completely committed to an armed struggle against Israel. Meanwhile, many people in Israel believe the Jewish state ought to be larger and are completely committed to the expansion of settlements into the Gaza Strip. The values of each society lead to actions that harm the other, yet cultural relativism says each society's moral guidelines are right. Cultural relativism provides no way out for the two sides to find common ground.
The existence of many acceptable cultural practices does not imply that any cultural practice would be acceptable.
Judging many options to be acceptable and then reaching the conclusion that any option is acceptable is called the many/any fallacy.
Societies do, in fact, share certain core values.
While a superficial observation of the cultural practices of different societies may lead you to believe they are quite different, a closer examination often reveals similar values underlying these practices. James Rachels argues that all societies, in order to maintain their existence, must have a set of core values. For example, newborn babies are helpless. A society must care for its infants if it wishes to continue on.
Hence a core value of every society is that babies must be cared for. Communities rely upon people being able to believe each other. Hence telling the truth is another core value. Finally, in order to live together, people must not constantly be on guard against attack from their community members. For this reason a prohibition against murder is a core value of any society.
Cultural relativism is only indirectly based on reason.
Many moral guidelines are a result of tradition. You behave in a certain way because it's what you're supposed to do, not because it makes sense. Cultural relativism has significant weaknesses as a tool for ethical persuasion. According to cultural relativism, the ethical evaluation of a moral problem made by a person in one society may be meaningless when applied to the same moral problem in another society. Cultural relativism suggests there are no universal moral guidelines. It gives tradition more weight in ethical evaluations than facts and reason.
Divine Command Theory
The three great religious traditions that arose in the Middle East that is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam teach that a single God is the creator of the universe and that human beings are part of God's creation. Each of these religions has sacred writings containing God's revelation. If you are a religious person, living your life aligned with the will of God may be very important to you.
The divine command theory is based on the idea that good actions are those aligned with the will of God and bad actions are those contrary to the will of God. Since the holy books contain God's directions, we can use the holy books as moral decision-making guides. God says we should revere our mothers and fathers, so revering our parents is good. God says do not lie or steal, so lying and stealing are bad.
The Case for the Divine Command Theory
1. We owe obedience to our Creator.
God is the creator of the universe. God created each one of us. We are dependent upon God for our lives. Hence we are obligated to follow God's rules.
2. God is ail-good and all-knowing.
God loves us and wants the best for us. God is omniscient; we are not. Hence God knows better than we do what we must do to be happy. For this reason we should align ourselves with the will of God.
3. God is the ultimate authority.
Since most people are religious, they are more likely to submit to God's law than to a law made by people. Our goal is to create a society where everyone obeys the moral laws. Hence our moral laws should be based on God's directions to us.
The Case against the Divine Command Theory
1. There are many holy books and some of their teachings disagree with each other.
There is no single holy book that is recognized by people of all faiths, and it is unrealistic to assume everyone in a society will adopt the same religion. Even among Christians there are different versions of the Bible. The Catholic Bible has six books not found in the Protestant Bible. Some Protestant denominations rely upon the King James Version, but others use more modern translations. Every translation has significant differences. Even when people read the same translation, they often interpret the same verse in different ways.
2. It is unrealistic to assume a multicultural society wills adopt religion-based morality.
An obvious example is the United States. In the past two centuries, immigrants representing virtually every race, creed, and culture have made America their home. Some Americans are atheists. When a society is made up of people with different religious beliefs, the society's moral guidelines should emerge from a secular authority, not a religious authority.
3. Some moral problems are not addressed directly in scripture.
For example, there are no verses in the Bible mentioning the Internet. When we discuss moral problems arising from information technology, a proponent of the divine command theory must resort to analogy. At this point the conclusion is based not simply on what appears in the sacred text but also on the insight of the person who invented the analogy. The holy book alone is not sufficient to solve the moral problem.
4. The divine command theory is based on obedience, not reason.
If good means "willed by God," and if religious texts contain everything we need to know about what God wills, then there is no room left for collecting and analyzing facts. Hence the divine command theory is not based on reaching sound conclusions from premises through logical reasoning. There is no need for a person to question a commandment. The instruction is right because it's commanded by God, period. Consider the story of Abraham in the book of Genesis. God commands Abraham to take his only son, Isaac, up on a mountain, kill him, and make of him a burnt offering. Abraham obeys God's command and is ready to kill Isaac with his knife when an angel calls down and tells him not to harm the boy. Because he does not withhold his only son from God, God blesses Abraham. Earlier in Genesis God condemns Cain for killing Abel. How, then, can Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac be considered good? To devout readers, the logic of God's command is irrelevant to this story. Abraham is a good person, a heroic model of faith, because he demonstrated his obedience to the will of God.
Kantianism Ethical Theory
Kantianism is the name given to the ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant spent his entire life in or near Konigsberg in East Prussia, where he was a professor at the university. Kant believed that people's actions ought to be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws were universal.
He held that in order to apply to all rational beings, any supreme principle of morality must itself be based on reason. Hence, while many of the moral laws Kant describes can also be found in the Bible, Kant's methodology allows these laws to be derived through a reasoning process.
A Kantian is able to go beyond simply stating that an action is right or wrong by citing chapter and verse; a Kantian can explain why it is right or wrong. Kantian came up with two ideas the Good will and Categorical imperative.
Good Will
Kant begins his inquiry by asking, "What is always good without qualification?" Many things, such as intelligence and courage, can be good, but they can also be used in a way that is harmful. For example, a group of gangsters may use intelligence and courage to rob a bank. Kant's conclusion is that the only thing in the world that can be called good without qualification is a goodwill. People with good will often accomplish good deeds, but producing beneficial outcomes is not what makes a good will good.
A good will is good in and of itself. Even if a person's best efforts at doing good should fall short and cause harm, the good will behind the efforts is still good. Since a good will is the only thing that is universally good, the proper function of reason is to cultivate a will that is good in itself. What we want to do and what we ought to do.
According to Kant, what we want to do is of no importance. Our focus should be on what we ought to do. Our sense of "ought to" is called dutifulness. A dutiful person feels compelled to act in a certain way out of respect for some moral rule. Our will, then, should be grounded in a conception of moral rules. The moral value of an action depends upon the underlying moral rule.
It is critical, therefore, that we be able to determine if our actions are grounded in an appropriate moral rule. What makes a moral rule appropriate? To enable us to answer this question, Kant proposes the Categorical Imperative.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
FIRST FORMULATION
Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws. To illustrate the Categorical Imperative, Kant poses the problem of an individual in a difficult situation who must decide if he will make a promise with the intention of later breaking it. The translation of this moral rule could be: "A person may make a false promise when that is the only way to escape a difficult situation." To evaluate this moral rule, we universalize it.
What would happen if everybody in extreme circumstances made false promises? If that were the case, nobody would believe promises, and it would be impossible for our individual in distress to make a promise that anyone believed. The moral rule self-destructs when we try to make it a universal law. Therefore, it is wrong for a person in distress to make a promise with the intention of breaking it. It is important to see that Kant is not arguing that the consequences of everybody breaking promises would be to undermine interpersonal relationships, increase violence, and make people miserable, and that is why we cannot imagine turning our hypothetical moral rule into a universal law.
Rather, Kant is saying that simply willing that our moral rule become a universal law produces a logical contradiction. Let's see how. Suppose I am the person who can escape from a difficult situation by making a promise I intend to break later on. On the one hand, it is my will that I be able to make a promise that is believed. After all, that's what promises are for. If my promise isn't believed, I won't be able to get out of the difficult situation I am in. But when I universalize the moral rule, I am willing that everybody be able to break promises. If that were a reality, then promises would not be believable, which means there would be no such thing as a promise. If there were no such thing as a promise, I would not be able to make a promise to get myself out of a difficult situation.
SECOND FORMULATION
To use popular terminology, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative says it is wrong for one person to "use" another as a means to an end. Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end. Instead, every interaction with other people must respect them as rational beings. Consider the following scenario
Scenario
Opa is a single mother who is working hard to complete her university education at DUCE while taking care of her daughter. Opa has a full-time job and is taking two evening courses per semester. If she can pass both courses this semester, she will graduate. She knows her child will benefit if she can spend more time at home.
One of her required classes is teacher professionalism and ethics. In addition to the midterm and final examinations, the lecturer assigns four lengthy reports, which is far more than the usual amount of work required for a single class. Students must submit all four reports in order to pass the class. Opa earn an “A” on each of her first three reports. At the end of the term, she is required to put in a lot of overtime where she works. She simply does not have time to research and write the final report. Opa uses the Web to identify a company that sells term papers. She purchases a report from the company and submits it as her own work. Was Opa's action morally justifiable?
Analysis
Many times it is easier to use the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view, so that's where we begin. By submitting another person's work as her own, Carla treated her professor as a means to an end. She received her lecturer with the goal of getting credit for someone else's work. It was wrong for Opa to treat the lecturer as a grade-generating machine rather than a rational agent with whom she could have communicated her unusual circumstances.
We can also look at this problem using the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Opa wants to be able to get credit for turning in a report she has purchased. A proposed moral rule might be: "I may claim credit for a report written by someone else." However, if everyone followed this rule, reports would cease to be credible indicators of the students' knowledge, and lecturers would not give academic credit for reports. Her proposed moral rule is self-defeating. Therefore, it is wrong for Opa to purchase a report and turn it in as her own work.
Commentary
Note that the Kantian analysis of the moral problem focuses on the will behind the action. It asks the question: "What was Opa trying to do when she submitted under her own name a term paper written by someone else?"The analysis ignores explanatory circumstances that non-Kantians may cite to justify her action.
The Case for Kantianism
1. Kantianism is rational.
Unlike the moral theories we have already described, Kantianism is based on the premise that rational beings can use logic to explain the "why" behind their solutions to ethical problems.
2. Kantianism produces universal moral guidelines.
Kantianism aligns with the intuition of many people that the same morality ought to apply to all people for all of history. These guidelines allow us to make clear moral judgments. For example, one such judgment might be, "sacrificing living human beings to appease the gods is wrong:' It is wrong in North America in the twenty-first century, and it was wrong in South America in the fifteenth century.
3. All persons are treated as moral equals.
A popular belief is that "all people are created equal." Because it holds that people in similar situations should be treated in similar ways, Kantianism provides an ethical framework to combat discrimination.
The Case against Kantianism
1. Sometimes no single rule fully characterizes an action.
Kant holds that every action is motivated from a rule. The appropriate rule depends upon how we characterize the action. Once we know the rule, we can test its value using the Categorical Imperative. What happens when no single rule fully explains the situation? Douglas Birsch gives this example: Suppose I'm considering stealing food from a grocery store to feed my starving children. How should I characterize this action? Am I stealing? Am I caring for my children? Am I trying to save the lives of innocent people? Until I characterize my action, I cannot determine the rule and test it against the Categorical Imperative. Yet no single one of these ways of characterizing the action seems to capture the ethical problem in its fullness.
2. There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules.
We may try to address the previous problem by allowing multiple rules to be relevant to a particular action. In the previous example, we might say that the relevant rules are (1) You should not steal, and (2) You should try to protect the lives of innocent persons. Unfortunately, Kantianism does not provide us a way to put moral laws in order of importance. Even if we could rank moral laws in order of importance, how would we compare a minor breach of a more important law against a major breach of a less important law?
One conclusion is that Kantianism does not provide a practical way to solve ethical problems when there is a conflict between moral rules.
3. Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.
Common sense tells us that sometimes we ought to "bend" the rules a bit if we want to get along with other people. For example, suppose your mother asks you if you like her new haircut, and you think it is the ugliest haircut you have ever seen. What should you say? Common sense dictates that there is no point in criticizing your mother's hair. She certainly isn't going to get her hair un-cut, no matter what you say. If you compliment her, she will be happy, and if you criticize her looks, she will be angry and hurt. She expects you to say something complimentary, even if you don't mean it. There just seems to be no downside to lying. Yet a Kantian would argue that lying is wrong because it goes against the moral law. Many people hold that any ethical theory so unbending is not going to be useful for solving "real world" problems. While these objections point out weaknesses with Kantianism, the theory does support moral decision-making based on logical reasoning from facts and commonly held values.
Act Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) theory
The English philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (18061873) proposed a theory that is in sharp contrast to Kantianism. According to Bentham and Mill, an action is good if it benefits someone; an action is bad if it harms someone. Their ethical theory, called utilitarianism, is based upon the Principle of Utility, also called the Greatest Happiness Principle.
PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY (GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE)
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties. Utility is the tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community. Depending on the circumstances, you may think of "happiness" as advantage, benefit, good, or pleasure, and "unhappiness" as disadvantage, cost, evil, or pain. We can use the Principle of Utility as a yardstick to judge all actions in the moral realm. To evaluate the morality of an action, we must determine, for each affected person, the increase or decrease in that person's happiness, and then add up all of these values to reach a grand total. If the total is positive (meaning the total increase in happiness is greater than the total decrease in happiness), the action is moral; if the total is negative (meaning the total decrease in happiness is greater than the total increase in happiness), the action is immoral.
Note that the morality of an action has nothing to do with the attitude behind the action. Bentham writes: "There is no such thing as any sort of motive that is in itself a bad one.
Act utilitarianism is the ethical theory that an action is good if its net effect (over all affected beings) is to produce more happiness than unhappiness. Suppose we measure pleasure as a positive number and pain as a negative number. To make a moral evaluation of an action, we simply add up, over all affected beings, the change in their happiness. If the sum is positive, the action is good. If the sum is negative, the action is bad. Did you notice that I used the word "beings" rather than "persons" in the previous paragraph? An important decision an act utilitarian must make is determining which beings are considered to be morally significant. Bentham noted that at one time only adult white males were considered morally significant beings.
Bentham felt that any being that can experience pain and pleasure ought to be seen as morally significant. Certainly women and people of color are morally significant beings by this definition, but in addition all mammals (and perhaps other animals) are morally significant beings, because they, too, can experience pain and pleasure. Of course, as the number of morally significant beings increases, the difficulty of evaluating the consequences of an action also increases. It means, for example, that the environmental impacts of decisions must often be included when performing the utilitarian calculus.
Evaluating a Scenario Using Act Utilitarianism
SCENARIO
A state is considering replacing a curvy stretch of highway that passes along the outskirts of a large city. Would building the highway be a good action?
Analysis
To perform the analysis of this problem, we must determine who is affected and the effects of the highway construction on them. Our analysis is in terms of dollars and cents. For this reason we'll use the terms "benefit" and "cost" instead of "happiness" and "unhappiness." About 150 houses lie on or very near the proposed path of the new, straighter section of highway. Using its power of eminent domain, the state can condemn these properties. It would cost the state $20 million to provide fair compensation to the homeowners. Constructing the new highway, which is three miles long, would cost the taxpayers of the state another $10 million. Suppose the environmental impact of the new highway in terms of lost habitat for morally significant animal species is valued at $1 million. Every weekday 15,000 cars are expected to travel on this section of highway, which is one mile shorter than the curvy highway it replaces. Assuming it costs 40 cents per mile to operate a motor vehicle, construction of the new highway will save drivers $6,000 per weekday in operating costs. The highway has an expected operating lifetime of 25 years. Over a 25-year period, the expected total savings to drivers will be $39 million. We'll assume the highway project will have no positive or negative effects on any other people. Since the overall cost of the new highway is $31 million and the benefit of the new highway is $39 million, building the highway would be a good action.
Commentary
Performing the benefit/cost (or happiness/unhappiness) calculations is crucial to the utilitarian approach, yet it can be controversial. In our example, we translated everything into dollars and cents. Was that reasonable? Neighborhoods are the site of many important relationships. We did not assign a value to the harm the proposed highway would do to these neighborhoods. There is a good chance that many of the homeowners will be angry about being forced out of their houses, even if they are paid a fair price for their properties. How do we put a dollar value on their emotional distress? On the other hand, we can't add apples and oranges. Translating everything into dollars and cents is the only way we can do the calculation.
Bentham acknowledged that a complete analysis must look beyond simple benefits and harms. Not all benefits have equal weight. To measure them, he proposed seven pains:
• Intensity: magnitude of the experience
• Duration: how long the experience lasts
• Certainty: probability it will actually happen
• Propinquity: how close the experience is in space and time
• Fecundity: its ability to produce more experiences of the same kind
• Purity: extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain, or vice versa
• Extent: number of people affected
The Case for Act Utilitarianism
1. It focuses on happiness.
By relying upon the Greatest Happiness Principle as the yardstick for measuring moral behavior, utilitarianism fits the intuition of many people that the purpose of life is to be happy.
2. It is down-to-earth.
The utilitarian calculus provides a straightforward way to determine whether a particular action is good or bad. By grounding everything in terms of happiness and unhappiness resulting from an action, it seems more practical than Kantian ethics, which is focused on the Categorical Imperative. For this reason it is a good way for a diverse group of people to come to a collective decision about a controversial topic.
3. It is comprehensive.
Act utilitarianism allows the moral agent to take into account all the elements of a particular situation. Recall the problem of having to decide what to say about your mother's haircut? Since telling the truth would cause more pain to all parties involved than lying, deciding what the right thing to do would be a "no brainer" using the utilitarian calculus.
The Case against Act Utilitarianism
1. When performing the utilitarian calculus, it is not clear where to draw the line, yet where we draw the line can change the outcome of our evaluation.
In order to perform our calculation of total net happiness produced by an action, we must determine whom to include in our calculation and how far into the future to consider the consequences. In our highway example, we counted the people who lost their homes and the people who would travel the new highway in the next years. The proposed highway may cut neighborhoods in two, making it more difficult for some children to get to school, but we did not factor in consequences for neighbors. The highway may cause people to change their commutes, increasing traffic congestion in other parts of town, but we did not count those people either. The highway may be in existence more than 25 years, but we didn't look beyond that date. We cannot include all morally relevant beings for all time into the future. We must draw the line somewhere. Deciding where to draw the line can be a difficult problem.
2. It is not practical to put so much energy into every moral decision.
Correctly performing the utilitarian calculus requires a great deal of time and effort. It seems unrealistic that everyone would go to so much trouble every time they were faced with a moral problem. A response to this criticism is that act utilitarians are free to come up with moral "rules of thumb." For example, a moral rule of thumb might be "It is wrong to lie." In most situations it will be obvious this is the right thing to do, even without performing the complete utilitarian calculus. However, an act utilitarian always reserves the right to go against the rule of thumb if particular circumstances should warrant it. In these cases, the act utilitarian will perform a detailed analysis of the consequences to determine the best course of action.
3. Act utilitarianism ignores our innate sense of duty.
Utilitarianism seems to be at odds with how ordinary people make moral decisions. People often act out of a sense of duty or obligation, yet the act utilitarian theory gives no weight to these notions. Instead, all that matters are the consequences of the action.
For example, suppose I've made a promise to JUMA. If I keep my word, I will perform an action that produces 1,000 units of good for him. If! Break my promise; I will be able to perform an action that produces 1,001 units of good for JAMES. According to act utilitarianism, I ought to break my promise to JUMA and produce 1,001 units of good for JAMES. Yet most people would say the right thing for me to do is keep my word.
Note that it does no good for an act utilitarian to come back and say that the hard feelings caused by breaking my word to JUMA will have a negative impact on total happiness of - N units, because all I have to do is change the scenario so that breaking my promise to JUMA enables me to produce 1,001 + N units of good for JAMES.
We've arrived at the same result: breaking my promise results in 1 more unit of good than keeping my word. The real issue is that utilitarianism forces us to reduce all consequences to a positive or negative number. "Doing the right thing" has a value that is difficult to measure.
4. Act utilitarianism is susceptible to the problem of moral luck.
Sometimes actions do not have the intended consequences. Is it right for the moral worth of an action to depend solely on its consequences when these consequences are not fully under the control of the moral agent? This is called the problem of moral luck. Suppose I hear that one of my aunts is in the hospital, and I send her a bouquet of flowers. After the bouquet is delivered, she suffers a violent allergic reaction to one of the exotic flowers in the floral arrangement, extending her stay in the hospital. My gift gave my aunt a bad case of hives and a much larger hospital bill. Since my action had far more negative consequences than positive consequences, an act utilitarian would say my action was bad. Yet many people would say I did something good. For this reason, some philosophers prefer a theory in which the moral agent has complete control over the factors determining the moral worth of an action.
Rule Utilitarianism
Basis of Rule Utilitarianism
The weaknesses of act utilitarianism have led some philosophers to develop another ethical theory based on the Principle of Utility. This theory is called rule utilitarianism. Some philosophers have concluded that John Stuart Mill was actually a rule utilitarian, but others disagree. Rule utilitarianism is the ethical theory that holds we ought to adopt those moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness. Hence a rule utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules, while an act utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to individual moral actions. Both rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are focused on rules, and the rules these two ethical theories derive may have significant overlap. Both theories hold that rules should be followed without exception. However, the two ethical theories derive moral rules in completely different ways.
A rule utilitarian chooses to follow a moral rule because its universal adoption would result in the greatest happiness. A Kantian follows a moral rule because it is in accord with the Categorical Imperative: all human beings are to be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. In other words, the rule utilitarian is looking at the consequences of the action, while the Kantian is looking at the will motivating the action.
The Case for Rule Utilitarianism
1. Performing the utilitarian calculus is simpler.
When calculating the expected total happiness resulting from an action, act utilitarians struggle with determining whom to include in the calculation and how far into the future to look. It's easier for a rule utilitarian to think in general terms about the long-term consequences on society of the universal adoption of a particular moral rule.
2. Not every moral decision requires performing the utilitarian calculus.
A person that relies on rules of behavior does not have to spend a lot of time and effort analyzing every particular moral action in order to determine if it is right or wrong.
3. Exceptional situations do not overthrow moral rules.
Remember the problem of choosing between keeping a promise to JUMA and producing1, 000 units of good for JAMES, or breaking the promise to JUMA and producing 1,001 units of good for JAMES? A rule utilitarian would not be trapped on the horns of this dilemma.
A rule utilitarian would reason that the long-term consequences of everyone keeping their promises produce more good than giving everyone the liberty to break their promises. Hence in this situation a rule utilitarian would conclude the right thing to do is keep the promise to JUMA.
4. Rule utilitarianism solves the problem of moral luck.
Since it is interested in the typical result of an action, the occasional atypical result does not affect the goodness of an action. A rule utilitarian would conclude that sending flowers to people in the hospital is a good action.
5. It appeals to a wide cross-section of society.
Bernard Gert points out that utilitarianism is "paradoxically, the kind of moral theory usually held by people who claim that they have no moral theory. Their view is often expressed in phrases like the following: 'It is all right to do anything as long as no one gets hurt,' 'It is the actual consequences that count, not some silly rules,' or 'What is important is that things turn out for the best, not how one goes about making that happen.' On the moral system, it is not the consequences of the particular violation that are decisive in determining its justifiability, but rather the consequences of such a violation being publicly allowed”. In other words, an action is justifiable if allowing that action would, as a rule, bring about greater net happiness than forbidding that action.
The Case against Utilitarianism in General
As we have just seen, rule utilitarianism seems to solve several problems associated with act utilitarianism. However, two criticisms have been leveled at utilitarian theories in general. These problems are shared by both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
1. Utilitarianism forces us to use a single scale or measure to evaluate completely different kinds of consequences.
In order to perform the utilitarian calculus, all consequences must be put into the same units. Otherwise, we cannot add them up. For example, if we are going to determine the total amount of happiness resulting from the construction of a new highway, many of the costs and benefits (such as construction costs and the gas expenses of car drivers) are easily expressed in dollars. Other costs and benefits are intangible, but we must express them in terms of dollars in order to find the total amount of happiness created or destroyed as a result of the project. Suppose a sociologist informs the state that if it condemns ISO homes, it is likely to cause 15 divorces among the families being displaced. How do we assign a dollar value to that unhappy consequence? In certain circumstances utilitarians must quantify the value of a human life. How can the value of a human life be reduced to an amount of money?
2. Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences.
The second, and far more significant, criticism of utilitarianism is that the utilitarian calculus is solely interested in the total amount of happiness produced. Suppose one course of action results in every member of a society receiving 100units of good, while another course of action results in half the members of society receiving 201 units of good each, with the other half receiving nothing.
According to the calculus of utility, the second course of action is superior because the total amount of good is higher. That doesn't seem right to many people. A possible response to this criticism is that our goal should be to promote the greatest good of the greatest number. In fact, that is how utilitarianism is often described. A person subscribing to this philosophy might say that we ought to use two principles to guide our conduct: (1) we should act so that the greatest amount of good is produced, and (2) we should distribute the good as widely as possible. The first of these principles is the Principle of Utility, but the second is a principle of justice. In other words, "act so as to promote the greatest good of the greatest number" is not pure utilitarianism. The proposed philosophy is not internally consistent, because there are times when the two principles will conflict. In order to be useful, the theory also needs a procedure to resolve conflicts between the two principles.
The criticisms leveled at utilitarianism point out circumstances in which it seems to produce the "wrong" answer to a moral problem. However, rule utilitarianism treats all persons as equals and provides its adherents with the ability to give the reasons why a particular action is right or wrong. Hence we consider it a third workable theory for evaluating moral problems, joining Kantianism and act utilitarianism.
Social Contract Theory
The Social Contract
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1603-1679) lived during the English civil war and saw firsthand the terrible consequences of social anarchy. In his book Leviathan he argues that without rules and a means of enforcing them, people would not bother to create anything of value, because nobody could be sure of keeping what they created. Instead, people would be consumed with taking what they needed and defending themselves against the attacks of others.
They would live in "continual fear, and danger of violent death;' and the life of man would be "solitary, poorer, nasty, brutish, and short” To avoid this miserable condition, which Hobbes calls the state of nature, rational people understand that cooperation is essential.
However, cooperation is possible only when people mutually agree to follow certain guidelines. Hence moral rules are "simply the rules that are necessary if we are to gain the benefits of social living". Hobbes argues that everybody living in a civilized society has implicitly agreed to two things: (1) the establishment of such a set of moral rules to govern relations among citizens, and (2) a government capable of enforcing these rules. He calls this arrangement the social contract.
The Franco-Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) continued the evolution of social contract theory. In his book “The Social Contract” he writes, "Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants". Rousseau states that the critical problem facing society is finding a form of association that guarantees everybody their safety and property, yet enables each person to remain free. The answer, according to Rousseau, is for everybody to give themselves and their rights to the whole community. The community will determine the rules for its members, and each of its members will be obliged to obey the rules. What prevents the community from enacting bad rules is that no one is above the rules. Since everyone is in the same situation, no one will want to put unfair burdens on others.
According to Rousseau, living in a civil society gives a person's actions a moral quality they would not have if that person lived in a state of nature.
The Case for Social Contract Theory
1. It is framed in the language of rights.
The cultures of many modern countries, particularly Western-style democracies, promote individualism. For people raised in these cultures, the concept of individual rights is powerful and attractive.
2. It provides a clear ethical analysis of some important moral issues regarding the relationship between people and government.
For example, social contract theory provides a logical explanation of why it is morally acceptable to punish someone for a crime. You might ask, "If everyone has a right to liberty, how can we put in prison someone who has committed a crime?" The social contract is based on the notion that everyone benefits when everyone bears the burden of following certain rules. Knowledge that those who do not follow the rules will be punished restrains individuals from selfishly flouting their obligations.
The Case against Social Contract Theory
1. None of us signed the social contract.
The social contract is not a real contract. Since none of us have actually agreed to the obligations of the citizens of our society, why should we be bound to them?
2. Some action s can be characterized multiple ways.
This is a problem social contract theory shares with Kantianism. Some situations are complicated and can be described in more than one way. Our characterization of a situation can affect the rules or rights we determine to be relevant to our analysis.
3. Social contract theory does not explain how to solve a moral problem when the analysis reveals conflicting rights.
This is another problem social contract theory shares with Kantianism. Consider the knotty moral problem of abortion, in which the mother's right to privacy is pitted against the fetus's right to life. As long as each of these rights is embraced by one side in the controversy, the issue cannot be resolved.
4. Social contract theory may be unjust to those people who are incapable of upholding their side of the contract.
Social contract theory provides every person with certain rights in return for that person bearing certain burdens. When a person does not follow the moral rules, he or she is punished. What about human beings who, through no fault of their own, are unable to follow the moral rules?
