Introduction to Ethical Language
Hopefully, most of you will have seen EITHER Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, or at least read the books, and will therefore understand what I mean when I say that in my opinion they celebrate Loyalty and Courage, and execrate disloyalty and cowardice. (You might consider whether you agree with this analysis).
I could go on to suggest that Loyalty and Courage are two characteristics which are to be applauded. They are good qualities to have in themselves, and that therefore the films which celebrate them are good films. Many of you might agree on one level, but might want to point out that there are certain circumstances in which exercising loyalty, or even courage might either lead to people engaging in wrong actions or have undesirable consequences. For instance, the person who, for reasons of loyalty to a lover connives at concealing the perpetrator of an horrendous crime, or the person who, from loyalty to a cause is prepared to die horribly, and take others to their deaths in order to further that cause, might demonstrate qualities of loyalty and courage to remarkable degree, but their actions and the consequences of their actions may well be deemed highly undesirable.
Having said that, many of us would STILL want to describe the characteristics of loyalty and courage as 'good'. So then, what do we mean by the term 'good'. Or 'bad'. Or 'right' and 'wrong'.
The study of ethics on which you are about to embark will invite you to consider the kinds of points raised above. You'll need to decide what you think about questions such as:
Here are a few situations in which such questions arise:
Morals and Ethics
Although these terms are often used interchangeably now, the words have a different derivation. Peter Vardy observes that 'ethics' derives from a Greek word which refers to the way people should be within a society. Within our study, 'ethics' will tend to be used in respect of a person's character, the qualities of that character, and the societal norms which form and inform that character.
Morals derives from a latin word, which is more concerned with actions themselves rather than character. In our studies it is perhaps, more used about the actions which derive from the various ethical systems than the systems of virtues and vices Jesus might have appreciated the distinction between the two concepts. See His frequent criticisms of people who did the right thing outwardly, but whose inner character was corrupt, like the person who refrained from committing adultery physically, but happily imagined having sex with someone (Sermon on the Mount, Matthew Chs 5-7). This distinction was the force behind his withering response to the men who invited him to judge a woman 'caught in the very act' of adultery - "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone!" John Ch 1 vs 8
How, then, do we engage in ethics? R A Bowie suggests three main ways:
Normative Ethics: Key words - Evaluation; judgement
Normative ethics concern the frameworks within which we ask what is 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong'. We engage in normative ethics constantly, as we evaluate actions, characters and cultures. We speak about actions being right or wrong. We talk about people being better or worse than other people. Statements like 'Euthanasia is permissible under certain cirumstances.' 'Hitler was a bad person.' illustrate the kind of statements that people will arrive at using normative ethics (although, of course, they may wish to make different judgements to the ones implied above. When a viewer praises Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter as being 'good' films because they celebrate the loyalty and courage shown by the characters in the film, they are engaging in normative ethics because they are making a judgement about the value of the ethics which come through these films. Decisions about right and wrong might be informed by the Law, societal norms or religious belief.
You could usefully think of films/media/current events which provoke people to engage in normative ethics. EG the murder of children frequently gives rise to a renewal of the public debate on capital punishment.
Descriptive Ethics: Key words: Descriptive; comparative; non evaluative.
Until the 19th Century, western culture was deeply affected by Judeao-Christian norms of cultural behaviour, and the ethics that went with that whole system of thought. There was a large measure of agreement about what constituted bad and good moral behaviour. However, with the rise of anthropology in the 19th and 20th centuries, it became clear that there were societies, untouched by Western European cultures, which had ethical systems and values quite different to Judeao Christian ones. At first, the tendency was to dismiss the value systems of these cultures as worthless as compared to norms of western culture, but later anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict began to argue that they should be approached non-judgementally, and merely described.
Description and comparison of the ways in which cultures and societies answer moral questions is now commonplace. A statement such as "Virginity is a pre-requisite for a marriage partner in certain cultures." illustrates the approach of descriptive ethics.
Meta-ethics: Key words: function; meaning; context
As philosophers began to examine many different norms of ethical behaviour, and became less reverent in their approach to accepted ones, such as the Judaeo-Christian ethic, they began to ask questions such as "What do I mean when I describe a human characteristic such as loyalty as 'good'?" Meta-ethics invites us to consider what it means to describe an action, attitude or person as 'good' or 'bad'. It invites us to consider whether the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad' actually have any meaning at all except as expressions of our personal opinions. Emotivism and intuitionism are two meta-ethical theories which attempt to address the issues raised by meta-ethics.
A question like "What do you mean when you say that war is wrong?" is a meta-ethical question.