1. WHAT ARE ETHICS?
Principles of right & wrong which
regulate behavior, resolve conflicts of
interest and promote social harmony
If decision only affects yourself, based
on PRUDENCE (self-interest) rather than
ETHICS: avoid negative consequences
ETHICAL decisions involve possibility of
helping or harming other people
ETHICAL REASONING enables individuals
to overcome self-serving bias
How would you define “ETHICS”?

2. WHAT IS EGOISM?
PRUDENCE: acting in own self-interest
(not necessarily selfish/EGOISTIC)
EGOISM: acting in self-interest without
caring about impact on other people
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: claim that
everyone always acts in self-interest
(self-sacrificial behavior is impossible)
MORAL EGOISM: possible for people to
act ALTRUISTICALLY (self-sacrifice) but
everyone should behave EGOISTICALLY
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM is a psychological theory about how the human mind
works, suggesting that everyone always and necessarily acts in their own
self-interest even if their actions appear to be ALTRUISTIC (self-sacrificial)
Were the first responders (paramedics
and fire fighters) on 9/11 acting
EGOISTICALLY when they rushed into
buildings which were in danger of
collapsing? It seems extremely unlikely!
PSYCH. EGOISM assumes a very cynical view of human nature; although it
can’t be disproven, numerous counter-examples undermine its plausibility
MORAL EGOISM is an ethical theory which acknowledges that ALTRUISM is
possible but argues that selfishness is a moral VIRTUE (ideal), not a VICE
AYN RAND was a novelist who
promoted capitalism and
“rational selfishness”

3. ETHICS AND THE LAW
ETHICS provide the basis for most laws,
but crucial distinction between them
Laws generally prohibit bad behavior
but don’t compel good behavior:
ETHICS often require going beyond law,
e.g. helping people who are in need
If laws are UNJUST, ETHICS may allow or
demand violation of them in protest
Danger: may break laws for EGOISTIC
reasons and rationalize as “ETHICAL”
The law rarely requires us to actively help people in need; instead, they
establish minimal moral standards that prevent us from harming others
The Civil Rights Movement is a paradigm case
of resistance to unjust laws: it was driven by
moral opposition to racial segregation and the
violation of African Americans’ civil rights
Some believe that laws restricting
pot use are likewise unjustified …
but are they simply rationalizing
their desire to smoke weed?

4. MOTIVATION FOR MORALITY
If we ‘do the right thing’ for reasons of
PRUDENCE (e.g., to avoid punishment),
we’re not necessarily behaving morally
Same act can be PRUDENT or ETHICAL
depending on motivation: for example,
obeying speed limit to (a) avoid ticket
or (b) reduce chance of harm to others
Most choices derive from combination
of PRUDENCE and ETHICS: difficult (and
unnecessary) to completely disentangle
Almost everyone agrees that stealing a CD from a store is morally
wrong, and very few of us shoplift valuable items on a regular basis
On the other hand, a majority of Americans admit that they’ve illegally
downloaded music (and other copyrighted media) from the Internet
Ethically speaking, there’s no real difference: in both cases you’re
taking something (music) that doesn’t belong to you without paying
In practical terms, however, shoplifters are far more likely to get caught
and suffer negative consequences; downloaders offer various
rationalizations to ‘justify’ their actions, but they’re not convincing
According to psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, children behave morally for
purely PRUDENTIAL reasons (e.g., to avoid punishment) or to follow rules
Most (but not all!) adults develop a higher moral sense which involves internal-
ization of ethical principles and the capacity to move beyond inflexible rules

5. CONSCIENCE & EMOTIONS
CONSCIENCE is an internalized sense of
right and wrong which causes us to
feel guilty or good about our behavior
It generally provides a good guide to
moral action but must sometimes be
corrected by critical ETHICAL reasoning
Likewise our emotions: although
feelings are central to ETHICS (e.g.,
anger at injustice, sympathy for those
in need), they can often lead us astray
Sometimes, however, an individual’s “moral compass” is not properly aligned
For example, children raised by neo-Nazis or members of the “Westboro
Baptist Church” are likely to end up with very distorted value systems
PSYCHOPATHS lack a CONSCIENCE altogether: although they know the differ-
ence between right & wrong, they feel no guilt as a result of harming others
An estimated 1% of the U.S. population (3 million people) are PSYCHOPATHS:
fortunately, most don’t become serial killers like Dexter—a fictional character
who follows a moral code instilled in him by his adoptive father
In fact, some
PSYCHOPATHS are very
successful: the lack of a
CONSCIENCE can be an
asset in certain
professions (politics,
business, sales, etc.)
Ideally, our CONSCIENCE will be properly aligned so we feel guilty (or
good) when and to the extent that we ought to feel guilty (or good)
Unfortunately, doing what we know is wrong often feels good (at least in
the short term), and doing right can be difficult and unpleasant
ETHICAL reasoning can help us realign our CONSCIENCE … however,
knowing what we ought to do and having the appropriate feelings are
very different: the latter can require effort and practice to cultivate

6. VIRTUE ETHICS
Theory of ETHICS which focuses on
developing a good moral CHARACTER
Strive to become more VIRTUOUS
(predisposed to do what’s right) and
less VICIOUS (possessing VICES, i.e., our
“default” reaction is morally wrong)
Provides profound psychological
insight into how we actually behave:
usually act on basis of CHARACTER
instead of consulting abstract theory
Although it’s been
eclipsed in recent
centuries by other
ETHICAL theories,
Virtue Ethics has a
rich history
According to Aristotle, VIRTUES comprise a “Golden Mean” (balance) between
equal and opposite VICES (excessive and insufficient degrees of a trait)
Although there’s a great deal of commonality among different cultures,
societies have different ideas about what qualifies as a moral “VIRTUE”

7. MORAL RELATIVISM VS. REALISM
According to RELATIVISTS, every society
decides for itself what’s right and
wrong—there’s no external standard
by which cultures can be judged
REALISTS disagree, insisting that some
ETHICAL principles are objectively true
(apply to everyone in all times/places)
MORAL REALISM often derives from
religious beliefs: God has revealed
rules which all people must follow
According to RELATIVISTS, morality is analogous to what language a society
speaks or which side of the road its citizens drives on: there’s no one “correct”
answer, just cultural variations which all deserve an equal amount of respect
Despite their respect for cultural diversity, REALISTS insist that morality is
different because it involves issues which can help or harm individuals
Is this an absolute moral truth, or is slavery sometimes justified? What
about rape, or the torture of children, or genocide, or other atrocities?
If RELATIVISM is true, then slavery etc. are morally correct as long as any
given society regards them as right … and slavery was ethically justified
until the moment the majority of Americans became convinced it’s wrong
Likewise, modern-day societies which deprive women of their rights and
punish the victims (not the perpetrators) of rape are morally correct; we
have no position from which to criticize them or argue for different laws
If REALISM is true, in contrast, we can confidently condemn immoral
practices no matter when or where they occur … but what’s the source of
these unchanging principles, and who decides exactly what they are?

8. ETHICS AND RELIGION
Many moral REALISTS derive their views
from religion, believing that God has
revealed ETHICAL truths to humanity
There are several problems with this
claim: (1) There are many different
religions—which one (if any) is true?
(2) Within any given religion (such as
Christianity), there are divergent inter-
pretations and a wide range of ETHICAL
views (from liberal to conservative)
Has God revealed
moral truths to
humanity? If so, in
which God should
we trust?
This one?
If we focus on a specific religion, which version should be follow?
Or this one?
The U.S. is a religiously pluralistic country with many different faith traditions, so
ETHICAL arguments offered in public debates need to have a SECULAR (non-
religious) basis in addition to any religious rationale which may underlie them
Fortunately, there’s one foundational
moral principle which all major religious
traditions share in common …

9. INTER-SUBJECTIVE ETHICS
Virtue of RECIPROCITY (treat others how
you’d like to be treated) provides basis
for position less rigid than REALISM but
more consistent than RELATIVISM
Requires recognition that all humans
(regardless of race, sex, culture, etc.)
share same basic nature and needs
Expressed in idea of universal HUMAN
RIGHTS: everyone is entitled to basic
RESPECT no matter what society says
Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s
summary of fundamental needs
which all human beings share
(Different cultures
understand and
satisfy these needs
in different ways)
Along with RECIPROCITY (Golden Rule), EMPATHY is central to moral thinking
Once we recognize that other people are basically like us in terms of their needs
and desires, it becomes ethically inconsistent to violate their basic rights
(SOCIOPATHS lack EMPATHY)
If you don’t want to be enslaved (or stolen from, raped, murdered, etc.), it’s
morally wrong to inflict that kind of harm on other people who are like you
Moral atrocities are often justified by “dehumanizing” their victims …
Native Americans and African slaves were considered “subhuman”Nazis regarded Jews as “vermin” who needed to be “exterminated”
The perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (over 800,000 people were
murdered in a period of several months) called their victims “cockroaches”
From the confession of a killer who belonged to the majority Hutu ethnic
group: “We no longer saw a human being when we turned up a Tutsi in the
swamps. I mean a person like us, sharing similar thoughts and feelings …”

10. SO, WHAT ARE ETHICS?
Principles of right and wrong which
regulate behavior within society,
founded on principle of RECIPROCITY
and recognition of shared humanity
Even if “moral facts” aren’t accessible
or don’t exist, sufficient basis for
common core of shared values/virtues
Ethical thinking enables us to overcome
EGOISM and becomes internalized in
CONSCIENCE of VIRTUOUS individuals
In general, VIRTUOUS individuals lead more satisfying and fulfilling lives, and
VIRTUOUS societies are more conducive to human FLOURISHING (happiness)
In contrast, VICIOUS (VICE-filled) people are more likely to feel alienated and
unhappy, and VICIOUS societies contribute to dysfunction and dissatisfaction
No person can be perfectly VIRTUOUS (always and automatically doing the right
thing) because ETHICAL behavior is always mixed with PRUDENCE
However, individuals (and societies) should continually strive to become more
VIRTUOUS, recognizing that “VIRTUE” can take many different forms
For example, non-Western societies don’t need to have the exact same under-
standing of EQUALITY that we possess to respect the basic rights of women
Likewise, the definition of a “good life” (in moral terms) can vary greatly among
individuals in a society—but will always contain certain elements
Some VALUES are universally embraced, although they might be interpreted and
applied different both within a culture and between different cultures
Examples: COMPASSION (aka SYMPATHY), RECIPROCITY, JUSTICE (giving people
what they’re due), LIBERTY (freedom and autonomy), TOLERANCE
(Any others you would add to the list?)

11. ASSIGNMENT
Summarize the differences between
MORAL REALISM, MORAL RELATIVISM and
ETHICAL INTER-SUBJECTIVISM.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. In your view, are there any moral
absolutes? If so, how are they justified?
2. How often do you break the rules? Are
you usually motivated by self-interest, and
if so does that reflect on your VIRTUE?