We all have opinions about what is morally right and wrong. By definition, ethic

Question

We all have opinions about what is morally right and wrong. By definition, ethics is the study of moral reasoning. In an Ethics class we learn more about different explanations of what is morally justified and the logical frameworks employed by each. Inevitably you will encounter some systems in this class that you like and some that you dislike. That is fair, but make sure that you are always able to articulate the reasoning employed by each system. In your discussion posts and papers, walk the reader through the process of moral reasoning. It might also help you to understand why you believe what you do - and as a result you might hone your position or perhaps even reconsider it. In this week's exercises we will begin to think about the moral logic used by different types of normative claims and consider the basic differences between relativism and objectivism. This will begin the process of unpacking how moral justification and reasoning works.

Explanation / Answer

Hope the following article will satisfy you!!

Many people - even many philosophers - think that morality and ethics are the same thing. But they are not. Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning.

Take the so called 'trolley problem', a thought experiment about runaway trains invented by the late Philippa Foot and very popular with moral philosophers of a certain whimsical bent. You see that a runway train is hurtling down a track, and that it is going to hit a group of 5 people standing in its path and will certainly kill them all. However, you happen to be standing next to a switch that can divert the train down another track where only a single person is standing. What would you do?

Most people say they would pull the switch and kill 1 rather than 5. Please try out your own intuitions against various iterations of the situation, and find out what other people decided.

But if the terms of the situation are slightly changed, people tend to give quite a different answer. Suppose that there is no switch, but that you are instead standing on a bridge over the railway track next to a very fat man, and you are sure that if you pushed him onto the track his bulk (but not yours) would be sufficient to stop the train before it hit the group of people. What do you think now? Should you kill the fat man?

Most people who said ‘yes' to diverting the train say ‘no' to pushing the fat man. But if you do, many moral philosophers would say you have made a mistake. Not because you are wrong about whether or not to kill people to save others, but because you are being inconsistent about your killing decisions.

I find this complaint rather strange, and I think it reveals much about the legalistic character of contemporary moral philosophy. What this approach to moral philosophy is concerned with is the correct derivation and application of moral rules. (The linguistic derivation of "morality" from the Latin, mos - norms or rules - is somewhat suggestive here, although the distinction I want to make does not depend on it.)

Moral philosophy therefore has two concerns:

(i) the content - 'what are the moral laws?' (whether the utilitarian commandment to maximise valuable consequences, or Kant's categorical respect for dignity).

(ii) the application of those rules - 'which moral law does this case fall under?'

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.