Meta-Ethics: The Logic of Ethics

There are two approaches to the study of ethics. One is to study ethics from a normative perspective, that is, to look upon ethics as guidelines or prescriptions that explain what ought to be done in a certain ethical situation. The other approach is to try to explain or predict scientifically why ethical decisions are made. This is a positive perspective, one that looks upon decision making about what is right and what is wrong as a field of study. In this chapter, both approaches will be used.

There are two basic sources of authority for ethical decisions: one is intuitive; the other is naturalistic. An individual may use either or both when making ethical decisions. The intuitive approach acknowledges that certain actions, by themselves, are good; it assumes that a rational, abstract good exists and that there is a definitive, ultimate source of authority on ethical decisions. The other approach is naturalistic because it focuses on the causes and consequences of actions in a natural setting; it is situationally specific. It does not assume a single source of authority, but rather emphasizes factors leading up to and following a specific action. Technically, the intuitive approach is based on deontology, and the naturalistic approach is based on teleology. Deontos is Greek for “of the obligatory.” Deontologists believe certain actions are right and ought to be done, regardless of the consequence. Teleos is Greek for “brought to its end.” Teleologists believe the rightness of an action is determined by its causes and consequences.7

Applying Rules

An example of the intuitive approach is applying the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would want others to do unto you. This is a rule for making ethical decisions which is common to most world religions. A similar single rule applied to an ethical situation is from nineteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant: Acts are ethical only if they are based on the assumption that if the decision-making principles were to become a universal law, all other individuals in the same category or set of circumstances would act the same.8 A modern-day version of Kant’s “categorical imperative” is called the TV rule: Do only those things you would feel comfortable explaining to a national TV audience.9 Intuitive rules do not focus on consequences; they focus on intentions, motives, and means. Here are other examples of intuitive rules:

To be ethical, live Aristotle’s Golden Mean: Take only those actions that represent moderation between extremes; avoid excessive actions.10

Justice is blind: To be fair, those being judged should step away figuratively from their current status in life and step behind a veil of ignorance to be judged as equals, regardless of race, sex, class, or other real conditions.11

Take only those actions which would be viewed as proper by a disinterested panel of professional colleagues.12

To be ethical, never be coercive, because coercion is the suppression of someone’s rights and freedoms.13

The customer is always right: profits are maximized in the long run by satisfying customer needs.14

Sometimes, multiple intuitive rules are involved in one situation, and the problem is to select from among competing, and sometimes conflicting, obligations. For example, Ross has identified categories of prima facie duties or obligations that, on first sight, appear to govern what should be done in a situation, assuming that all other factors are equal and there are no conflicting duties.15 When factors are not equal and there are competing duties, an ethical problem results: choosing the dominant duty. For example, a business executive may say his first duty is to make a profit, but that duty may be in conflict with another: to do no harm to others. Ross identified six potentially conflicting categories of duties:

1. Duties of fidelity: not lying, being faithful, keeping promises.

2. Duties of gratitude: acknowledging services rendered, returning a favor, reciprocity.

3. Duties of justice: being fair, being equitable, being impartial.

4. Duties of beneficence: sharing good fortune, helping others to achieve happiness.

5. Duties of self-improvement: knowing and improving yourself.

6. Duties of noninjury: doing no harm to others.