Saturday, 22 November 2014

care ethics

INTRODUCTION
Heterogeneity is one evident feature of every society which is apparent in the various spheres or facets of each society. Amidst every other thing or phenomena, the standard of morality or he standard to judge that which is ethically right or wrong, differs from one society to the other. This therefore implies that there are various yard-sticks or standards from which various actions performed in the society can be judged, either as right or wrong. There are certain actions which most of would condemn as morally wrong and ought not to have been done by anybody, for example, armed robbery, embezzlement of public funds, bribery and corruption, adultery, e.t.c, and even those who involve n such actions know that they are wrong.[1] There are also certain kinds of action which all of us would consider as morally right, e.g kindness, honesty, e.t.c
On the other hand, there are also various certain actions about which there are diverse views or opinions, e.t.c. The emergent question will be “why do we consider actions as right or wrong? How do we decide which actions are right and wrong?” These are questions that preoccupy the mind of ethicists, and responses to these questions are referred to as ethical theories. The focus of this write-up therefore will be to give a critical analysis of some ethical theories. In order to aid a better understanding of this write-up, this thematic outline will be followed;
·         An Understanding of Ethical theories
·         Exposition of Specific Ethical Theories
·         Evaluation
·         Conclusion

AN UNDERSTANDING OF ETHICAL THEORIES
Ethical theories are the foundations on which ethical analysis are done .They constitute the viewpoints that guide the pathway to moral decisions. The term “ethical theory” suggests reflection on the nature and justification of right actions.[2] These words refer to attempts to introduce clarity, substance, and precision of argument into the domain of morality . [3]Pertinent to note is that, there are various ethical theories , but each theory has its own peculiarity, in the sense that, each of the many theories emphasizes different point. However, all of them are geared towards reaching the ethically correct decision.
More so, it is important to note that for any ethical theory to be useful, it must be directed towards a common set of goals, namely ethical principles. These ethical principles include among others, beneficence, least harm, respect for autonomy and justice, e.t.c.
EXPOSITION OF SPECIFIC ETHICAL THEORIES
EGOISM
Egoism as a term has its root in the Latin word “ego”, which could ne translated to mean “I”. Egocentrism therefore means making one’s own self or interest as a principle of action without regard for other people. As an ethical theory, egoism argues that we should always do that which will promote our personal good. The egoists therefore contend that all choices either involve or should involve self-promotion as their sole objective.[4] It won’t be extraneous to say that, for the egoists, no sacrifices or obligations are owed to others.
There are two main theories of egoism, physiological egoism and ethical egoism. Pysiological egoism is the view that everyone is always motivated to act in his or her perceived self-interest.[5] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy puts it thus: “physiological egoism is a view about people’s motives, inclinations or dispositions.” One statement of physiological egoism says that, as a matter of fact, people always do what they believe is in their self-interest and, human nature being what it is, they cannot do otherwise.[6]
Furthermore, the proponents of this theory of human nature cum motivation found altruism a serious problem and rhetorically ask: Can a conscious agent deliberately choose to do a thing that he thinks will not pay him? The point of the emergent question lies in whether such agent knows what he is doing or does he perhaps understand his interest differently from the observer?
On the other hand, ethical egoism is a theory stating that the only valid conduct is the obligation to promote one’s well-being above everyone else’s.[7] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy puts it thus: “ethical egoism is the view that people ought to do what it is in their own self-interest” It is important to note that ethical egoism is differently from the common morality, and this is made evident in the maxims such as, “You are a sucker, if you don’t put yourself first and the others second”.[8] The idea of looking out for others interest have boggled the mind of some ethical egoists and this has led some of these thinkers to regard conventional morality as tinged with irrational sentiment and indefensible constraints on the individual.”[9]
A closer scrutiny at this theory could yield questions such as, what would the society be like if ethical egoism becomes the dominant or prevailing theory of proper conduct? Thomas Hobbes, a renowned modern philosopher has an answer to this: Imagine a world with limited resources, he says, where persons are approximately equal in their ability to harm one another and where everyone acts exclusively in his or her own interest. Hobbes argued that in such a world, everyone would be at everyone else’s throat. Such a state of nature would be plagued by anxiety, violence, and constant danger.[10] In his words, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”[11]
Critique of Egoism
Having exposed this theory, it could be said that the theory gives incompatible directiveness in circumstances of moral conflict: If everyone acted egoistically, it seems reasonably certain that protracted conflicts would occur, just as many international conflicts now arise among nations primarily pursuing their own interest.[12] More so, it is evident that egoists do not care about the welfare of others provide it affects their own welfare. And so, for them also, this desire for personal well-being is the standard to judge morality.
UTILITARIANISM
This is another which states that utility is the moral standard, it is the criterion or yardsticks with which good actions are distinguished from bad actions. It holds that the moral worth of actions or practices is determined solely by their consequences. An action or practice is right if it leads to the best possible balance of good consequences over bad consequences for all the parties affected.[13] The major proponents of this theory are J.S Mill (1711-1776) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).
The Utilitarians conceived of their philosophical work as an attempt to lay down an objectPive principle for determining when a given action was right and wrong. They called this maxim the “principle of utility”, and it states that: An action is right insofar as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number.[14] It is important to note that though Bentham and Mill have identified happiness with pleasure, and interpreted this principle to a form of hedonism, the modern utilitarians have stressed more on the consequences of an action, and not the motive from which an action was done, in judging the rightness or wrongness of an action. It could therefore be said that utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory that measures the worth of actions by their utility, i.e, by their usefulness to the actors. It can be described to as a consequentialist ethical theory because the utility in question is judged from the consequence the act has or would have.[15] Utilitarianism as an ethical theory has two variants; act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism
This holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action can be should be decided only on the basis of the consequences of the action. An act utilitarian argues that in all situations one ought to perform the act which leads to the greatest number.[16] More so, act utilitarianism does not take into account the nature of an action itself; what counts is the result of the consequence of the action.[17] An act utilitarian would not hesitate to break any moral rule if breaking it would lead to the greatest number in a particular case.[18]
Rule Utilitarianism
The principal idea of rule utilitarianism, according to Edwards (1976), has been to apply the test of utility not to the effects of an act itself, but rather to its tendency or to a rule under which the falls.[19] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy elucidates more on this theory, as it states clearly that: according to rule utilitarianism, individual actions are evaluated in theory, not in practice, by whether they conform to a justified moral rule, and the utilitarian is applied only to general rules. From the foregoing, it is obvious that unlike act utilitarianism, which is concerned with particular actions, rule utilitarianism is concerned with rules.
Critique of Utilitarianism
 Amidst various criticisms of utilitarianism, one of them is that it ignores non-utilitarian factors that are needed to make moral decisions. The most prominent omission cited is consideration of justice: The action that produces the greatest balance of value for the greatest number of people may bring about unjustified treatment of a minority.[20]
DEONTOLOGY
This is the ethical theory that claims the rightness or wrongness of an act depends neither upon the motive from which the act was done nor upon the consequences of the act but solely upon what kind of act it was. [21] This theory stresses more on the notions of obligation and duty, and so, they are referred to as duty ethics. Ethics of duty is the view that there are certain other kinds of acts which we ought always to do and there are certain other kinds of acts which we should never voluntarily do.[22] A practical example of the kind of act we ought to do is that; it is right to keep one’s promises, because in making a promise, one has performed an act that by its very nature obligates one to carry it out, regardless of one’s inclinations or the effects that carrying it out will have.[23] On the other hand, the kind of activity that we ought not to do is to commit murder or adultery. If we obey all the positive rules and all the negative ones, we shall be doing our full moral duty.[24]
More so, the emergent question could be “whence do duties and taboos arise?” The primary and common source consists of the customs, norms, mores, e.t.c of our social group, community or society. Apparently, these customs specify or clearly state certain modes of behavior that are socially accepted and those that are socially condemned. And so, we are in duty bound to conform or adhere to the mores or codes of morality in our various social group, and not break any. Deontologists will therefore hold that to conform to and do what is required of one is morally right; to violate custom is wrong.
VIRTUE ETHICS
The general concept behind Virtue ethics is that it focuses on what the individual should choose for his/her personal inward behavior (character) rather than the individual relying on the external laws and custom’s of the person’s culture, and if a person’s character is good then so sought the person’s choices and actions be good.[25] Virtue as described by the American Heritage Dictionary is “moral excellence and righteousness; goodness”. A virtuous person, according to The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, is one with dispositions relevantly linked to human flourishing. Also, Aristotle defines a virtuous person as someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they become stable. It won’t also be extraneous to say that a virtuous person who is characterized by morals; living out good moral qualities without being persuaded to.
Furthermore, there are various forms of virtue ethics that predominated in Western Philosophy prior to the renaissance period, and this is evident in personages like Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas. The various views of these medieval philosophers focused on character rather than on discrete behavior, i.e, conducts that would be seriously out of character for a virtuous person.[26]
More so, it is pertinent to note that ethical theories such as deontological and consequentialist theories aim primarily to specify or identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. But on the contrary, virtue ethics simply deals with questions such as “How should I live?”, “What is good life?”, “What are proper family and social values?” Virtues therefore cannot be devoid of right desire and right reason. More importantly, amidst other features, a distinguishing feature of virtue ethics is that character traits are stable, fixed and reliable dispositions. If an agent possesses the character trait of kindness, we would expect him/her to act kindly in all sorts of situations, towards all kinds of people, and over a long period of time, even when it is difficult to do so. A person with a certain character can be relied upon to act consistently over a time.[27]
CARE ETHICS
This is another ethnical theory that is closely related to virtue ethnics: an influential version of virtue ethnics. This theory develops some of the themes in virtue ethics this theory develops some of the themes in virtue ethics about the centrality of character but the ethics of care/care ethics focuses on a set of character traits that people are deeply value in close personal relationship-sympathy compassion fidelity, love, friendship, and like.[28] This theory has grown or developed by philosophers who are indebted to feminine theory or feminist writer, such as Annette baier. Furthermore, theorists of care ethics, through this medium, call for a change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting toward virtues exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, e.t.c. According to them, these virtues have been marginalized because society has not adequately valued the contributions of women.[29] The feminist approaches to ethics therefore may be characterized by at least two presuppositions. First, the subordination of women is wrong. Second the experiences of women are worthy of respect and should be taking seriously.[30]
In addition, many scholars who uphold or hold on to care ethics, argue that moral decision often require a sensitivity to the situation as well as an awareness of the beliefs, felling, attitude, and concern of each of the individuals involved and of the relationship of those individuals to one another.[31] Finally, there are varieties of specific virtues whose their relation to social practices and moral education, moral practices, e.t.c are very crucial or central to virtue ethics.
EVALUATION
Having made a critical exposition on the specific ethical theories, a denial of the fact that there are various standpoints or yardsticks from which ethical analysis are made, would be to turn one’s back against reality.












BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York: Henry Holt and Company, inc, 1958
Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 2012
Joseph Omoregbe, Socio-Political Philosophy, Ikeja: Joja Press, 20
Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979
Pantaleon Iroegbu, Anthony Echekwube, Kpim of Morality Ethics, General, Special & Professional, Ibadan: Heineman Educational Books (NIGERIA) PLC, 2005
Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy Made Simple, 2nd Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993
Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
Virtue Ethics, Ethics in www.ethicsmorals.com/ethicsvirtuehtml, retrieved on 22-04-2014
Virtue Ethics, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy in mobile.dudamobile.com/site/iep_utm?url=http%3A&2F%2Fwww.iep.utm.edu%2Fvirtue%2F8dm_redirected=true#2777







[1] Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 2012, p. X
[2] Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 2
[3] Ibid. p. 2
[4] Ibid. p.14
[5] Ibid. p.14
[6] Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.254
[7] Opcit. Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, p.15
[8] Ibid. p.17
[9] Ibid. p.17
[10] Ibid. p.17
[11] Joseph Omoregbe, Socio-Political Philosophy, Ikeja: Joja Press, 20
[12] Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 2
[13] Ibid. p.22
[14] Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy Made Simple, 2nd Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993, p.32
[15] Pantaleon Iroegbu, Anthony Echekwube, Kpim of Morality Ethics, General, Special & Professional, Ibadan: Heineman Educational Books (NIGERIA) PLC, 2005, p.88
[16] Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 24
[17] Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 2012, p.237
[18] Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York: Henry Holt and Company, inc, 1958, p.24
[19] Pantaleon Iroegbu, Anthony Echekwube, Kpim of Morality Ethics, General, Special & Professional, Ibadan: Heineman Educational Books (NIGERIA) PLC, 2005, p.89
[20] Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 27
[21] Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy Made Simple, 2nd Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993, p.48
[22] Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York: Henry Holt and Company, inc, 1958, p.9
[23] Opcit., Richard H. Popkin, Avrum Stroll, PH.D, Philosophy Made Simple, 2nd Edition, p.48
[24] Charles A. Baylis, Ethics, New York: Henry Holt and Company, inc, 1958, p.9
[25] Virtue Ethics, Ethics in www.ethicsmorals.com/ethicsvirtuehtml, retrieved on 22-04-2014
[26] Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.961
[27] Virtue Ethics, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy in mobile.dudamobile.com/site/iep_utm?url=http%3A&2F%2Fwww.iep.utm.edu%2Fvirtue%2F8dm_redirected=true#2777
[28] Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, New Jersey: A Simon & Schuster Compaany, Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p. 39
[29] Robert Audi (G. Ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.443
[30] Opcit. Norman E. Bowie (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, fourth edition, p.40
[31] Ibid. p.40

No comments:

Post a Comment