ethics and its divisions

INTRODUCTION

WHATS IS ETHICS?

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, a philosophical study of voluntary human action, with the purpose of determining what types of activity are good, right, and to be done, or bad, wrong, and not to be done, so that man may live well[1]. It is often used interchangeably with morality, it is otherwise called moral philosophy because it addresses questions pertaining morality; it is narrowed down to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual. Ethics pertains to the individual character of a person or persons, while morality points more to the relationship among persons.[2] Ethics is a science of virtue or vice; it is a systematic study of the fundamental principles of morality. Morality, in itself, is a set of natural rule, which regulates human behaviours/actions in relation to one another in society.

The subject of ethics is voluntary human conduct; this includes all actions, and also omissions, over which man exercise personal control, because he understands and wills these actions in relation to the end he has in view.[3]

In ethics, however, we are concerned with what we ought to do, what consequences ought to be achieved, and what sort of persons we ought to become. In other words, ethics is a normative inquiry and not a descriptive one. It seeks to establish and prescribe norms, standards or principles for evaluating our actual practices.[4] Because ethics seeks to establish principles that prescribe what we ought or ought not to do, it has similarities to other domains of human existence that seek to guide behavior, such as religion.

 Ethics is one of the major branches of philosophy. It is concerned with the study of human actions in relation to its rightness or wrongness. Thus, it is the scientific study of the behavioural patterns of the human persons with great regards and reference to his or her nature as a rational being.[5] Similar to philosophy, ethics does not have a universally accepted definition; it has a number of different meanings. The frequent use of the word ethics mostly refers to a code or a set of principles by which people live. However, etymologically, ethics derives from the Greek word ‘ethos’ which means character. Morality derives from a Latin word ‘moralis’ which means customs or manners. Some moral philosophers has also tried to define ethics in their own words: ethics is the branch of philosophy in which man attempts to evaluate and decide upon particular courses on moral action or general theory of conduct according to Richard T. Garner. A. T. Radoslav in his own position states that ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the value of human life in a systematic and scientific manner. It is concerned with the type of conduct or character that is approved of or disapproved of in terms of right or wrong or good or bad. W. Lillie defines ethics as a “normative science of the conduct of human beings living in societies, a science which judges this conduct to be right or wrong, to be good or bad, or in some similar way”.[6] Ethics has also been defined as the “set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms sentient creatures.[7]

Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is considered a normative science, because it is concerned with norms of human conduct, as distinguished from the formal sciences.[8] It focuses attention on how humans can live a moral life and studies the standards that evaluate and determine morality in the society. Ethics involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, often addressing disputes of moral diversity.[9]

The above definitions of ethics used concepts like ‘science’, ‘normative’, and conduct. Clarifying the concepts, ethics as a science shows that it is systematic. As being normative, it means that ethics is prescriptive. Conduct refers to the voluntary actions of a person.

Moral philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, applied and descriptive ethics and these show cases the major divisions of ethics as a philosophical discipline. Metaethics investigates the sources of our ethical principles and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Normative ethics involves a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. Should I steal to meet my financial needs? These moral questions could be immediately answered by consulting the moral guidelines provided by normative theories. Applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as infanticide, abortion, animal rights, homosexuality, environmental concerns, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. [10] Descriptive ethics is concerned with the people’s opinion on what is wrong and what is right. The distinction Line between metaethics, normative ethics, applied ethics and descriptive ethics are often blurry but I will throw more light by exposing them one after the other.

THE FIELDS OR DIVISIONS OF ETHICS

The fields of ethics refer to the different and specific divisions of ethics as a discipline. Ethics as a branch of philosophy and as a normative discipline is subdivided into four major divisions: normative ethics, meta-ethics, applied ethics and descriptive ethics. These are the basic and broad divisions of ethics.

NORMATIVE ETHICS

Normative ethics is a division of the discourse of ethics that looks into the consequences of human actions in arriving at ethical judgments; it is mainly concerned with the standards or principles of right and wrong behaviour. It attempts to explain, states and often times demands obedience to a specific rule or principle. In order words, normative ethics is concerned with presenting and justifying a guide to right conduct. It uses terms such as good, bad, right, wrong etc., to express preferences, decisions and choices. The terms are also used in grading, praising, blaming, encouraging, and critiquing.

Normative ethics, otherwise called moral philosophy, has two subsets: the first subset is called the theory of value otherwise called axiology. It examines the philosophical problems of goodness or badness. The second subset of normative ethics is called theory of obligation. This deals with philosophical problems of right or wrong conducts. Theories under this broad division of ethics do not describe how people behave or think, rather they prescribe how people ought to behave and think.

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. [11] A classic example of a normative principle is the Golden Rule: Do to others what you would want others to do to you. Since I do not want anybody to copy my term paper, then I should not copy anybody’s term paper. If I do so, it is wrong.

Using the same reasoning as in the above, the possibility of the rightness or wrongness of an action can be theoretically determined. As an example, The Golden Rule is a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, such as moral rights to life, happiness, and liberty.

The basic assumption in normative ethics is, there is only one ultimate criterion to moral conduct, whether a single rule or a set of principles. Some philosophical ethics is broad and general, seeking to find general principles or explanations of morality. Much, however, focuses on analysis of notions central to ethics itself.  However, philosophers do not have a universal agreement about what precisely the criterion is. For years now, hundreds of theories have been propounded, each claiming to be the ultimate guide. Proponents of these theories also reject rival theories. For example, most normative ethicists reject the Golden Rule in the above form. If I am a masochist then, according to the Golden Rule, it is morally permissible for me to inflict pain on other people. But inflicting pain on others is clearly wrong; hence the Golden Rule fails as the ultimate criterion of morality[12]. Another example is the conflicting theories or views of egoism and altruism. Egoism always argues that one should do what promotes his or her personal good, while altruism argues that the right thing is for one to always do what will contribute to and advance the good of the majority of the people.

In spite of the quantity of normative theories available for consideration, many theories involve common strategies that are classified into three: (1) virtue theory, (2) deontological theories, and (3) consequentialist theories.

1.            Virtue theory: Virtue theory is the view that the basis of morality is the advancement of good character traits, or virtues. A person is good if he has virtues and lacks vices. Typical virtues include courage, temperance, justice, prudence, fortitude, liberality, and truthfulness. Philosophers that uphold this theory believe that morality consists of following precisely defined rules of conduct. Presumably, one must learn these rules, and then make sure each of his or her actions live up to the rules. Virtue theorists, however, give less prominence on learning rules, and instead emphasize the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence.

2.            Deontological theory: Deontological theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are called deontological theories, from the Greek word ‘deon’, which means duty, given the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are necessary, regardless of the consequences that might follow from our actions.

3.            Consequentialist theory: according to this theory, normative theories, correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences, thus Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable.

Consequentialist normative principles entail that one should first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, one should determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally appropriate. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally inappropriate.

META-ETHICS

The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves an overview of the entire project of ethics. Meta-ethics is non-normative and is otherwise known as analytic or critical ethics. It is mainly concerned with the language of normative ethics. Meta-ethics engages in a critical examination and analysis of the terms employed in the discourse of norms. Meta-ethics therefore is the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. It treats ethical concepts and propositions and beliefs systems as objects of philosophical inquiry.[13]

There are issues thought to be prominent in meta-ethics: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans; (2) psychological issues concerning what motivates us to be moral; and (3) linguistic issues concerning the meaning of key ethical terms.

·                     Metaphysical issues: The metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions.

·                     Psychological Issues: A second concern of metaethics involves the psychological basis of moral actions, principally, understanding what prompts humans to be moral. A common question of “why morality?” is always being asked by moral philosophers. Variety of answers may be given but we basically act morally to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society.

Moral psychology looks beyond the surface of these answers and attempts to pin-point and ascertain the internal psychological factors that are ultimately responsible for moral motivation.

·                     Linguistic issues: To a large extent, ethics involves itself with assessing conducts and pronouncing judgments, such as “good”, “bad”, “wrong”, “right” etc. When such assessments are made, key terms like "good," "right," "ought," and "should” are used.

To ascertain a full understanding of morality, analysis of the key moral terms must be well made. This used to be a subject of argument during the early 20^th century between British and American moral philosopher. Nuances of these linguistic words are equally analyzed. This is evident in many ethical publications. As a result, several aspects of moral judgments ignored by moral philosophers have been brought to the fore.

APPLIED ETHICS

            This is yet another branch of ethics. It is a philosophical examination of controversial issues from the moral perspective. Applied ethics is therefore distinguished commonly as that part of ethics that gives particular and direct attention to practical issues and controversies.  This branch of ethics consists of the analysis of specific controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, and euthanasia. The central aim of applied ethics is to apply normative principles in the examination of controversial issues.

Applied ethics is marked out from ethics in general by its special focus on issues of practical concern. In the contemporary world, applied ethics has been subdivided into the following:

·                     Medical ethics

·                     Administrative ethics – the application of ethical principles to administration in the world.

·                     Business ethics – the application ethical principles to business

·                     Environmental ethics

·                     Sexual ethics, otherwise called bioethics.

DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

This is an empirical investigation of people’s belief on morality. It is a form of an empirical research into people’s attitude. It is concerned with the proportion of people who believe in the wrongness or rightness of an action. It is often referred to as a comparative ethics. It normally raises the question “what do people think is right or wrong?” it is solely concerned with the people’s judgment of what is right and wrong.

CONCLUSION

This work as I introduced, is a concise exposition of ethics and its major divisions and their concerns with regards to morality. Ethics is the principle of morality and its divisions have their specific methods of looking at and considering issues based on morality. I exposed the different divisions of ethics and their concerns.

The different definitions of ethics as a discipline uses concepts like ‘science’, ‘normative’, and conduct. These concepts are clarified in order to throw more light to our understanding of ethics as being systematic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.      Jonathan Ree and J.O Urmson (Ed). The concised encyclopedia of western philosophy, third edition. Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abinggdon, USA. 2005.

2.      Robert Audi (Ed). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, second edition. Cambridge university press.1999.

3.      Pantaleon Iroegbu and Anthony Echekwube (Ed). Kpim of morality ETHICS, General, special and professional. Heinemann Educational Books (Nigeria) Plc. 2005.

4.      T. Mautner, (ed) (2000), “Ethics” in The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, London: Penguin Books.

5.      Ethics (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm (4 of 10) [4/21/2000 8:41:53 AM]

6.      W. Lillie, (1948),  an introduction to ethics, London: Mathuen and co. ltd, pp. 1-2.

7.      R Paul, and L . Elder, (2006),  the miniature guide to understanding the foundations of ethical reasoning, united states: foundation for critical thinking free press

8.      Ethics." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.

9.      J.P Thiroux (1986), ethics, theory and practice, 3^rd ed. New York: Macillian publishing company, p. 2

10.  Singer, P. (ed.) (1991) A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell.

11.  William A. Wallace, op. the element of philosophy.society of st. paul New York.1977. p49

---

[1] William A. Wallace, op. the element of philosophy.society of st. paul New York.1977. p49

[2] J.P Thiroux (1986), ethics, theory and practice, 3^rd ed. New York: Macillian publishing company, p. 2

[3] William A. Wallace, op. the element of philosophy.society of st. paul New York.1977. p49

[4] Journey to philosophy encyclopedia lawhead

[5] Pantaleon Iroegbu and Anthony Echekwube (Ed) Kpim of morality ethics (General, special and professional). Heinemann Educational books (Nigeria) PLC. 2005. P.29.

[6] W. Lillie, (1948),  an introduction to ethics, London: Mathuen and co. ltd, pp. 1-2.

[7] R Paul, and L . Elder, (2006),  the miniature guide to understanding the foundations of ethical reasoning, united states: foundation for critical thinking free press.

[8] "Ethics." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.

[9] See “ethics” in http://www.Iep.utm.edu/ethics/ (retrieved on 4/3/14)

[10] Ethics (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/erasmus.htm (5 of 5) [4/21/2000 8:41:41 AM

[11] Ethics (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).   http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm (4 of 10) [4/21/2000 8:41:53 AM]

[12]ibid (5 of 10)

[13] T. Mautner, (ed) (2000), “Ethics” in The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, London: Penguin Books.