This document discusses several topics in meta-ethics, including: - Meta-ethics examines the meaning of ethical terms and statements, rather than prescribing actions like normative ethics. - The is-ought problem questions whether moral claims ("ought" statements) can be derived from factual claims ("is" statements). - Ethical naturalism defines moral goodness using non-moral terms like happiness, but is challenged by Moore's naturalistic fallacy. - Intuitionism holds that we intuitively know basic moral truths, while emotivism views ethics as expressing attitudes rather than facts.

1. REVISION

2.  Meta-ethics
 Free Will and Determinism
 The nature and role of the conscience
 Virtue Ethics
 Environmental ethics
 Business ethics
 Sexual ethics

4.  What is meta-ethics?
◦ Meta-ethics is the study of what our ethical language
means; what do we mean by “good” or “bad” or “right” or
“wrong”? It goes beyond the reaches of normative or
descriptive ethics and tries to understand what ethical
statements are really saying. It looks at what the words
mean, how people use them and how they work.

5.  What is the is/ought controversy?
◦ An “is” statement is a statement of fact e.g. Eilidh hit Siobhan.
◦ An “ought” statement is a statement of value e.g. Eilidh ought not
to have hit Siobhan.
◦ Hume’s argument was that you cannot go from an is to an ought
without a proper explanation, e.g. “The Bile says homosexuality is
wrong therefore homosexuals cannot get married”.
◦ People who believe that there are moral facts are called ethical
naturalists. People who follow natural law or utilitarianism are
naturalists because they believe define goodness as something
non-moral, e.g. the will of God, pleasure, nature etc. They believe
that there doesn’t need to be a gap between is/ought statements
◦ What is the Naturalistic Fallacy? Those who think that
moral statements can’t be called fact and that goodness cannot
be defined are called non-naturalists. They believe that is/ought
statements cannot go together. Moore called putting is and ought
statements together the “Naturalistic Fallacy”

6. How does meta-ethics differ from normative ethics?
Normative Ethics discusses:
Is morality decided by what is produces the greatest good for
the greatest number?
Is it decided by a list of unbreakable rules?
Is it decided by a list of character virtues?
Seeks to provide action guides – guidelines for what we should do
Meta Ethics discusses
What does moral language mean?
Do moral facts exist?
How can we know whether moral judgements are true or false?
Is there a connection between making a moral judgement and abiding by
it?
Normative Ethics Meta Ethics
Is morality decided by what
is produces the greatest
good for the greatest
number?
What does moral language
mean?
Is it decided by a list of
unbreakable rules?
Do moral facts exist?
Is it decided by a list of
character virtues?
How can we know whether
moral judgements are true
or false?
Seeks to provide action
guides – guidelines for what
we should do
Is there a connection
between making a moral
judgement and abiding by
it?

7. Ethical Naturalism is all about defining good as something non-moral, for example:
Good = Conducive to social stability
Good = What the Bible says
Good = Happiness
 Naturalists believe that moral truths are facts. Moral facts are not views or opinions, nor are they based on
intuition. When I observe that something is wrong, it is a moral fact of the universe. For example, when I
observe a murder, I do not just observe that fact that someone has been killed. I also observe the fact that it
is morally wrong.
 Naturalism is the theory which states that ‘Good’ used in a moral sense, can be defined in natural or non-
moral terms e.g. good = happiness.
 Naturalists could say that good is what brings happiness, helping others brings happiness, therefore helping
others is good.
 A moral conclusion (it is good) has been obtained from a non-moral premise (happiness).
 Example
Naturalistic principle – Good = success
Fact – Doing well at school brings success.
Evaluative fact – Therefore doing well at school is good.
Strengths Weaknesses
It’s based on what is
natural – everyone can
understand it and
experience it.
Naturalistic Fallacy: We
cannot use facts (is) to
work out how we should
behave (ought).
Presents a solid guideline
that ethics follows in
every situation.
Right and wrong are
subjective not objective.

8.  G.E.Moore famously refuted Naturalism, saying that you can’t move from an is to an ought
without proper explanation: the Naturalistic Fallacy.
 He said “We know what good is, but we cannot actually define it”, just as everybody knows what
‘yellow’ is but would not be able to define it. ‘Good’ is not a complex term that can be broken
down further, you just recognise that something is good by intuition.
 If ‘good’ was a complex idea, we could ask of it whether it was itself good. For example,
Bentham defined good as pleasure (the greatest pleasure for the greatest number). But you can
ask “Is pleasure good?” Because the question makes sense, pleasure can’t mean the same as
good.
 Intuitionism is the view that moral values are known directly, by rational insight. Moral values are
self evident to rational beings. Everyone can see that theft is wrong. No proof or reasoning, or
explanation is necessary.
Strengths Weaknesses
Keeps moral debate open: the statement
“homosexuality is wrong” cannot be verified in the
same way as “Paris is the capital of France”.
Clearly, there are some moral statements that are
universally accepted and seem like facts, e.g. “the
torture of innocent children is wrong”.
We do seem to just know when things are right and
things are wrong.
It allows us to make mistakes to easily, all based on
what we think.
Obviously, it does not make sense to say “is good
good?”, whereas it does to say “is good happiness”.
Moore does not explain where our moral intuitions
come from, reducing morality to guess work.

9.  Emotivism is the view that the main function of moral statements is to express the emotions or attitudes
of the speaker and arouse similar feelings, emotions and attitudes within their audience.
 Ayer says that goodness is ‘a mere pseudo-concept’. To say that something is good is not provide any
information about it, or to make a factual statement. In fact, ethical statements have no truth value as
they cannot be verified or falsified either analytically of synthetically.
 E.g. Giving to charity is good means that I like giving to charity and I want you to know that I like giving
to chariThis theory is also known as “boohurrah” theory because we are either saying “boo” to what we
think is wrong or “hurrah” to what we see as right – nothing more.
 Stevenson develops Ayer’s theory of emotivism by suggesting that ethical language is meaningful
because it tells us something about a person’s personal beliefs and principles and also because
whenever we make ethical statements there is an element of persuasion. When we say that something
is good, we are hoping to influence our audience to come to the same conclusion as us.
 E.g. Giving to charity is good means that I like giving to charity and I want you to know that I like giving
to charity because it might make you feel the same way.
Strengths Weaknesses
Emotivism has showed us the strong connection
between morality and emotions
Peter Vardy – Aers emotivism is an “ethical non-
theory” which just discusses feelings, not ethics
It requires us to think about how we use ethical
statements to motivate or persuade others
It leaves us without any moral facts: those who
follow religious ethical systems would claim that
there are moral facts and that other people can be
morally in the wrong

10.  Prescriptivism is the view that moral statements are not only descriptive but
are also primarily action guiding, so ‘theft is wrong’ really means ‘do not
commit theft’.
 R.M. Hare stated that moral judgements contain both a prescriptive and
universal element. Hare believes emotivism gives an understanding of
moral language which is too subjective. He argues that although moral
language is still non cognitive it is also objective because it guides our
behaviour and command our actions.
 Hare believes that moral actions are universal when we act in a certain way,
we should be able to state that everyone in the same situation ought to
make the same moral decision and act in the same way. In this way Hare
argues that ethical language is sensible and meaningful as it makes sense
for us to prescribe moral advice to others.Strengths Weaknesses
It explains why people might disagree so
strongly over ethical issues
These prescriptions could justify nearly
anything.
It makes people think more about ethical
values – “do unto others as you would
have done unto yourself”
They are totally based on opinion and
subjective – do we have the right and the
expertise to recommend ethics to others?

11.  Free Will and Determinism is an important issue
because it has implications for:
◦ Judgement
◦ The goodness of God
◦ Conscience
◦ Moral responsibility
There are 3 possible positions people can take with regard to
Free Will and Determism:
◦ Libertarianism
◦ Hard Determinism
◦ Soft Determinism/Compatibilism

12. Hard DeterminismHard Determinism
Hard determinists argue that all human action is causally determined, and that
therefore we never act freely and cannot be held morally responsible for our
actions. The different arguments for determinism come from a number of
perspectives, but they are all based around the same main principle: Universal
Causation.
•What is universal causation?
This means that all events are caused. In principle, all actions and decisions
can therefore be predicted. This is how science works e.g. Friction causes
heat. We live with and observe the cause and effect rule, in fact we assume it.
We assume that if we let go of something we are holding in the air, gravity will
cause that thing to fall, for example. Hard determinists believe the same thing,
except they claim that we should assume cause and effect is also true for
moral decisions. Doctors will admit there are diseases with unknown causes,
but it would be hard to find a doctor who would admit there is a disease
without a cause.

13. Psychological Behaviourism
 This is a form of hard determinism that states that our actions are not controlled by ourselves but
are determined by our environment. Its rationale is that there is always a cause – it looks at
people’s behaviour and tries to work out the cause of that behaviour.
 John Watson, a psychologist and behaviourist, famously boasted:
“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in
and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I
might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief,
regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”
The theory is that humans will respond in a certain way to certain stimuli, and if you can control
the stimulus, you can control the response. Hence the response is conditional.
 Skinner agreed with Watson, saying that our thoughts and feelings are not causal, but they are
simply learned responses to external factors. According to Skinner and Watson, there are two
main causal factors; heredity and environment. By manipulating a man’s surroundings, we can
significantly alter his behaviour.
 The process of the environment affecting behaviour is called conditioning because it means we
can condition a response.
 Pavlov’s dogs give evidence for Skinner’s idea of “operant conditioning” which says that we can
use positive and negative reinforcement to condition responses.

14. Genetic Determinism
 This form of hard determinism states that our actions are controlled by our
genes. Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene” writes “we are
survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the
selfish molecules known as genes”.
 However, later Dawkins may be retracting his belief in genetic determinism
by saying “we have the power to defy the selfish genes of birth”.
 Eugenics is based on the idea that we can maintain or improve our species
and create stronger and stronger versions of human beings by altering their
genes. Positive eugenics is the creation of a gene pool that allows certain
inherited capacities to continue into the future. Negative eugenics is aimed
at eliminating genes which carry disease or disability.

15. Theological Determinism
 Within Christianity, there are a few thinkers who have defended belief in a
kind of Theistic Determinism. Thinkers who took the view that God is the
ultimate cause who determines all human actions include Martin Luther,
Jonathan Edwards and Calvin.
 Calvin wrote “not a drop of rain may fall without the express command of
God”
 Edwards argued that all actions are caused, since it is irrational to claim that
things arise without cause. But for him, a self-caused action is impossible
since a cause is prior to an effect and one cannot be prior to oneself.
Therefore all actions are ultimately cause by a First Cause, God.
 Free choice for Edwards is doing what one desires, but since God is the
author of our desires, all human actions must be determined by God.

16. Libertarianism
 Libertarianism (or incompatibilism) argues that determinism is not compatible with
freedom and moral responsibility, that freedom is real and therefore determinism (at
least as applied to human behaviour) must be wrong.
 This has been justified in many ways, but the most common defence is this:
◦ Nothing can be more certain than what is given in immediate experience. I
experience myself making free choices and this is far easier to believe than some
complicated theory, no matter how eminent the supporters of that theory may be.
◦ Our experience of freedom is a fact of our existence, while determinism is at best
a complicated theory. If the two conflict, this indicated that there must be
something wrong with determinism.
◦ It is true that sometimes we make mistakes in our judgements of perception e.g.
we might look at an object from a distance and think it is black, but on closer
inspection it turns out to be red.
◦ BUT the case of freedom is different. Here, further experience only serves to
confirm our conviction: on every new occasion when I am confronted with several
alternatives, I once again experience my freedom.

17. Soft
Determinism/Compatibilism
 William James made the distinction between hard
and soft determinism. The latter includes all those
theories which basically accept determinism but
still retain some notion of human freedom and
responsibility.
 Generally, these soft determinist theories rely
upon a certain definition of freedom that allows
freedom and determinism both to be true. There
are several such theories, the main ones coming
from Hobbes, Hume, Frankfurt and Mill.

18. Approaches to Compatibilism
 Frankfurt: Freedom is believing you have a free choice, even if you don’t. If you believe you are
free then you are. Compatibilism can therefore work because there are times when we are free
and times when we are determined, depending on what we believe to be the case at the time.
Our choices are free and so we are morally responsible for those; we have freedom of choice,
but not necessarily freedom of action.
 Hobbes: We are free as long as there is nothing stopping us from acting. It is all about whether
you are free to do something, not just free to choose it. For Hobbes, compatibilism can work
because sometimes we are able to act unimpeded, and other times something impedes our
action. We have no moral responsibility.
 Classical compatibilism: “Free will is the unencumbered ability of an agent to do what she wants”.
It is plausible to assume that free will is compatible with determinism since the truth of
determinism doesn’t entail that no agents ever do what they wish to do unencumbered.
 Hume: A person’s action is free if, and only if, had the person wanted to do otherwise than the
act, the person would have had the power to do otherwise than the act. He did not agree with the
rule of cause and effect. He felt that we link two events together in our minds, calling them cause
and effect (e.g. I let go of the pen I am holding in the air, it falls) because the regularity of our
world makes it happen every time. We are both free and determined because we choose to let
go of the pen, and then the pen seems determined to fall.

19. Key figures
Clarence Darrow
 Darrow was a hard determinst lawyer who
was the lawyer for Nathan Leopold and
Richard Loeb when these 2 young men had
killed a boy but it had gone wrong. He
accepted that the two men were guilty and
instead of giving them the death penalty, he
pleaded for them to be given life
imprisonment.
 He said “what has this boy to do with it? He
was not his own father; he was not his own
mother, he was not his own grandparents.
All of this was handed to him. He did not
surround himself with governesses and
weakth. He did not make himself. And yet he
is to be compelled to pay.”
 Darrow meant that the boys were not morally
responsible for what they did, they were
conditioned to behave in that specific way.
Ted Honderich
 Honderich claims that everything is determined,
both internally and externally. He denies that we
have any choice, and therefore disagrees that we
have any moral responsibility. Whatever I do, I
could not have done otherwise - I was determined.
If I could not have done otherwise, I cannot be held
responsible for my actions, and should not be
punished just for the sake of it (although it does
make sense to punish people as a deterrent or to
protect society from someone who is dangerous).
 Honderich sounds like an incompatibilist, but he
actually claims that the very idea of free will is
meaningless, so it doesn't make any sense to claim
that free will is incompatible with determinism. He
says both compatibilism and incompatibilism are
incoherent and meaningless.
John Locke
 Locke gave the example of a man who wakes up in a room that, unknown to him, is
locked from the outside. He chooses to stay in the room, believing he has chosen
freely. In reality, he has no option. However, his ignorance of this gives him an illusion
of freedom.
 His famous quote is: “Freedom of choice is an illusion”

20. Sexual Ethics
 The contextual questions of sex are:
◦ What is sex for?
◦ Is sex a matter of ethical discussion?
◦ Should it be?
◦ Can we control sexual desire or inclination?
◦ Should we?
◦ Is sex like a runaway car? Cynics:
When it comes to sex, there is no
control and nor should there be.
Sex is human nature like eating,
drinking, washing etc. It isn’t a good
thing, but its not a bad thing –it’s
just something we do. Rape and
sexual attack is not included
because this doesn’t come from a
lack of control but from anger
because of too much control. Rape
is not about sex, it is about violence
and violence comes from the other
side; the anger and pressure of
having too many rules.
Dualists:
We are not mere animals, we have a spirit.
If we want to be human, we have to fully
control our bodies. This gives the negative
side of sex – it is just a pull to our animal
side and we need to control that.

21. Approaches to sexual ethics
Kant:
We should be ruled by our reason,
not by our feelings. The actual act
of sex is amoral, it is the will that
matters. Are you doing it out of a
subjective animal desire or because
reason dictates that you do it?
Otherwise you are not exercising
your choice and you end up being
determined by your desires.
Aquinas:
Sex must have the potential for
procreation as sex is for the
purpose of having children only. It is
entirely associated with conception,
pregnancy and childbirth and any
sexual acts that are not open to this
possibility are intrinsically evil as
they go against nature and prevent
us from closeness with God.
Utilitarianism:
As long as nobody is injured,
offended or psychologically
damaged by a sexual ecounter,
there is no problem with sex. It does
need to be consensual and all
involved must have the power and
right to stop things before the
situation goes any further. This
approach is all about minimising
pain and behaving responsibly.
Virtue Ethics:
Sex is about the emotional desire
and instinct but its also about
finding the balance between the
cynics and the dualists. We must
embrace the desire, but we also
have to have some kind of rational
control over it. It’s ultimately all
about flourishing and growth.
Situation Ethics:
It recognises that, whilst rules can
exist they are not immovable as
'love is the only (rule)' and is good
in itself.
Personalism, which tells us you
need to put the people first,
Positivism, which means to do the
most loving thing and the
Pragmatism of the facts, which are
Relative to the case, show us that
love, not the rule, is absolute.
Cynics
Dualists
Utilitarians
Kant
Aquinas
Virtue Ethics
Situation Ethics

22. Environmental Ethics
 The is/ought controversy:
The environment is changing quickly/ being treated unsustainably. Does this “is” lead to an
“ought”?
The environment as we know it is being destroyed by greenhouse gases. 
We ought to stop driving cars.
There’s a big jump there between the “is” and the “ought”.
Human
Non-humans
Non-animals
This diagram shows the different
levels of care for the
environment.
If you are here, you care about
non-animals, non-humans and
humans
If you are here, you care for
non-humans and humans, but
not non-animals
If you are here, you only care about humans
William’s Effects:
William says that when we are approaching
the environment then it is necessary to
consider the possible effect of damage
to the environment:
1) Unallocated Effects: The effect on future
generations (economic effects)
2) Experiential Effects: How is my
experience affected by the activities of
others (What we do in Britain has effects
elsewhere)
3) Non-human Effects: The effects on
animal (the removal of their habitat)
4) Non-animal Effects: Trees, flowers,
mountains, deserts etc

23. Secular approaches to the
environment
 There’s no relationship between “is”
and “ought”
◦ It is a mistake to think there is a
link/relationship, that view is a fallacy.
◦ Fundamental Christians say this
because God gave humans dominion
over all the environment.
◦ Dominion in this case is defined as
“power and choice”, like “it’s yours, do
what you like with it”
◦ This idea is backed up by Revelation,
where it says “there will be a new earth”.
If there will be a new earth, why bother
about this one?
 Shallow Ecology/Utilitarian
◦ If the environment isn’t working for us,
we ought to make it work for us.
◦ We need to be sustainable and
comfortable.
◦ We would only look after the
environment because it helps ourselves.
◦ This is completely anthropocentric – we
help the environment because then we
can reap the benefits.
◦ There is a link between “is” and “ought”;
we use the environment for our benefit.
◦ It only has value as long as it is useful to
us.

24. Secular approaches to the
environment
 Deep Ecology
◦ This is the mainstream Christian view
which says that the environment has
intrinsic value.
◦ Christians believe that we do not have
dominion over the environment, but
stewardship; “This is valuable, look after
it until I get back”
◦ The environment is intrinsically valuable
because God created it.
◦ The environment is good, not because it
does a job for us, but because it just is
good.
◦ We therefore have a duty to the
environment, meaning there must be an
is/ought link in this theory
 Gaia Hypothesis
◦ Gaia is the universe, but it is a living,
breathing whole, which we are just
another part of.
◦ This is an eccentric view which put to
focus on the ongoing ecosystem, not on
the human race.
◦ It states that we serve the ecosystem
and therefore we are subject to it.
◦ According to Lovelock, we are just here
to look after the ecosystem. If we don’t,
we become a kind of virus and the
ecosystem will then reject us and
destroy us.

25. Relationship between
business and environment
 “Environmental ethics is becoming an important issue for many companies and
businesses as there is a greater push for corporate responsibility”
 Any business needs to think about the environment as they use lots of electricity,
power, paper, and often work within poorer communities where the environment is
struggling.
 Leaders of big businesses do have a responsibility to be aware of the effects they
have on the environment.
 Smaller businesses have responsibility too, but it is on a smaller level.
 There is still no global initiative or code aimed at improving the situation concerning
environment and business.
 There should be no confusion about what is good for business versus what is good
for the environment. “The consensus must be that there should be a hierarchy of
interests – one which places environmental and sustainability concerns at the peak”
 Big businesses have to set a good example and encourage others to follow suit. If
they behave in an unethical way towards the environment, so will smaller businesses.

26. Business Ethics
What responsibilities does a business have?
Environment
Employees
Economy
Clients
Share holders
Local Community
Global Community
Business + Environment relationship is often tested
What is business ethics?
A business is an organisation that provides goods and
services to customers. Every business has stakeholders
(groups affected by the business) including people who
work for the business, suppliers, consumers and groups
like local residents to whom they have a responsibility.
Business Ethics is all bout thinking about how to
balance the rights and responsibilities of these different
groups E.g. if a business can save money by employing
children in India, is that wrong?
Is business all about profit?
Yes  Companies have to adopt ethical practices to
attract more customers but businesses will only survive
if they are essentially selfish. If you’re running a
business, you have to make money.
No  Businesses have a profound impact on the
environment, lives of workers, on society and on the
world as a whole. They therefore have very important
responsibilities. A company can value its workers,
genuinely care about the environment and still make
money.
Examples of moral issues for businesses
Whistle blowing: Sometimes businesses end up acting
unethically (e.g. taking unnecessary risks). When this
happens, an individual may need to inform the
authorities. Does the individual have the authority to do
this? They may lose their job, harm their business and
their co-workers may suffer.
 Espionage: Some companies pay lots of money for
people to spy on competitors and copy their ideas.
Phones are hacked, offices bugged and employees
followed. Because this problem exists, lots of companies
pay for really good security.

27. Key approaches to business
 Business’ only business is profit:
◦ “We will do things in the cheapest possible way, and
then we will use the moeny we earn to do what we
feel is important e.g. expand the business to get more
money.”
◦ The puspose of the business is to make a profit – this
is the capitalist model.
◦ A business is founfef for the purpose of profit making
and this should be its only concern.
◦ It could work because if a business is making a profit,
people are getting paid, therefore they are spending
money and the economy works.
◦ BUT this approach does not take into account human
greed – people end up wanting more and more money
and lose sight of other important things in life e.g.
environment, local community, employees etc.
◦ There is no intrinsic value involved with business, a
business proves its value by earning a profit,
otherwise the business is worthless.
◦ This might be Kant’s position: business is not a moral
issue so we use the hypothetical imperative. If I want
to make a profit, I should...
 The mutual benefit model
◦ “We might not make a profit if we chop down trees
because people care about the environment, se we
will plant some more trees when we chop them
ddown so that people like us again”
◦ If people shop with a business, it should be an
advantage to them and an advantage to the
business.
◦ Many companies sell fairtrade tea and coffee, but
they aren’t fairtrade members and don’t pay money
to fairtrade. They keep the profit on fairtrade items.
◦ The will do whatever keeps their customers happy
because if they don’t look after their customers,
their customers wont look after them.
◦ Again, nothing has intrinsic value, a business needs
to prove its value by making money.
◦ This is the utilitarian approach to business.

28. Key approaches to business
 Sustainable Practice
◦ Business is not just for profit: “The environment
is important in its own right and we should
spend profits on making the business more
sustainable so that the environment benefits”
◦ A business has other duties aside from profit
making.
◦ Regardless of whether it makes a profit or not,
it still has a duty to care for its employees and
treat them fairly.
◦ These businesses were founded to make a
profit, but also to improve lives in the local
community.
◦ Here, society becomes an important part of
trade.
◦ This is similar to Natural Law, which says
everything has intrinsic value (e.g.
environment, employees etc) so these factors
should be respected, but at the same time, the
business itself has intrinsic value and should be
successful.
 Socialist Ideal
◦ Business serves society: “We have business
and it can profit but the business is actually
there to improve the environment, or lives for
local people, or the standard of living for its
employees. Obviously, that will make less
profit, but we have a duty to the environment
and we will all work together to improve things”
◦ Business has to make profit to continue serving
the community, but that is not the purpose or
the goal of it.
◦ When the co-op was founded, it was founded to
serve society and they have decided that as
soon as it stops serving society, it will close.
◦ This approach is most similar to Virtue Ethics
as it is all about relating to each other and
becoming a better community that can develop
and grow together.

32. Virtue Ethics
 Aristotle based his moral theory “Virtue Ethics” on his father, and introduced it to the
world in his second book, Nicomachean Ethics.
 Virtue Ethics is not about what we do, it’s about who we are.
 Goodness is all about characteristics, not about actions
 It is about practice, not about rules.
 “Virtue” means a perfection. The aim is to become perfect and reach Eudaimonia,
living the good life.
 For Aristotle “living the good life” is the correct application of reason in order to fulfil
your purpose. We all have a purpose, a job to do, a final cause etc according to
Aristotle.
 My Nature: I have emotions. To become perfect, I have to practise using my emotion
with the correct application of reason.
 Anger: You don’t completely control it, but you don’t just let it go. You have to wonder
how much of the feeling of anger would it be correct and appropriate to apply?
 You have to change and adjust your behaviour and reactions based on the situation,
just like a bicycle.

33. The Golden Mean
 Your reason, emotion, intuition etc have got to be in balance so that you can fulfil your potential.
This comes with practice, not from simply following rules.
 If you don’t apply reason, you become less of a good person and begin to fall into bad habits
instead of good ones.
 The Golden Mean has 3 sections:
◦ The Vice of Excess: When you apply too much of an emotion or a virtue to a situation.
◦ The Vice of Deficiency: When you do not apply enough of an emotion or virtue to a situation.
◦ The Golden Mean: When you apply just the right amount of an emotion or virtue to a situation.
The Vice of
Deficiency
The Golden Mean The Vice of Excess
Cowardice Courage Recklessness
Shamelessness Modesty Bashfulness
Virtue Ethics worked in Aristotle’s time because purpose was more clear then. You were a warrior,
politician, philosopher or craftsman, and just applied VE to that. Now, it’s harder to apply because
we don’t really know our purpose. This theory is not relative or absolute, it’s not subjective or
objective, teleological or deontological – it doesn’t really fit into any of these categories.

34. Aquinas Virtue Ethics
 Applying reason to our nature is important, but we also need to apply
reason to our relationship with God.
 He changed Eudaimonia to Beatitudo, “christianising” Virtue Ethics.
 He also added theological virtues such as hope (you can reasonably hope),
faith and charity.
 After the Enlightenment, Virtue Ethics didn’t make so much sense any more
– as there were more job choice, people were less sure of their true
purpose.
 Societies and groups had some very different rules to others about what a
good person was, so changes needed to be made for Virtue Ethics to fit in
with our modern lives.

35. 1950s onwards
 Anscombe wrote a book called Modern Ethics. She deconstructed “deontological and
prescriptive” ethics. She was trying to change the course of ethics, saying it’s about
who we are, not what we do. She was the first of the modern virtue ethicists.
 MacIntyre wrote a book “Beyond Virtue” in the 1960s. His big phrase was “Perfect
within our own narrative”. We’re not like the ancient Greeks and nobody who doesn’t
live in our narrative can tell us what to be like. We have to become experts about our
own culture and about our own history. Being virtuous is understanding who you are
then growing in that culture, using reason to become perfectly who you are. To be
virtupus is to perfectly fir into your own story. This is as relative as you can get.
 Philippa Foot – One of the founders of Oxfam, she said “Making the world a better
place” is what virtue ethics is all about. You have to apply your reason to yourself to
make the world a better place. If you do this, you will become a better person.
Someone who has practised virtue will flourish and grow.
 Nassbaum – He wanted to revert to Aristotle and reinforced the idea that there is a
human nature. His view is essentially the same as Aristotle’s.

38. The role and nature of
conscience
 Conscience can be understood to mean different things both to religious and to non-
religious groups.
 Where religious groups are concerned, conscience has God as its core, but its nature
and purpose can be understood in different ways.
 For non-religious people, conscience can be understood as simply being our moral
sense and for others it is little more than an emotional response. Conscience can be
described as:
◦ Our capacity to know, or awareness of, basic moral principles
◦ A reasoning process
◦ A judgement terminating a reasoning process (the deciding element)
◦ A disposition of will (choosing)
◦ A mode of self-awareness (no reasoning involved)

39. Aquinas on Conscience
 Conscience is “the mind of man making moral decisions”
 Aquinas thought that practical reason, through reflection on human nature, can determine primary moral
principles (which he called the 'Primary Precepts'). Our 'conscience' then derives secondary principles
('Secondary Precepts') which are applied. As we practice balancing our needs against the needs of others, we
develop Prudence.
 Synderesis - an innate knowledge of human nature and primary precepts through practical reason
 Conscientia - deriving secondary precepts, and applying them
 Prudence - the virtue of right-reasoning in moral matters, balancing ours and others' needs
 Aquinas said that a person's conscience could err (go wrong), either 'invincibly', through no fault of
their own, or 'vincibly' - through our own fault. For example, if I give money to a man who is begging on the
streets, I have good intentions, but my actions are actually unhelpful. If I had considered my actions carefully, I
would have seen that I wasn't helping him to improve his situation - if anything, my actions would keep him on
the streets longer. I erred 'vincibly', as I would have done differently if I'd thought about it. Imagine if I'd given
the money instead to a homeless charity, who would be able to help this man to find accommodation, help
conquering his addictions etc. A much better thing to do. However, I did not know that workers at this charity
were abusing the homeless people in their care. Supporting the charity was actually the wrong thing to do, but I
couldn't have known this - I erred or got it wrong 'invincibly' - it wasn't my fault.
 Conscience needs to be formed and educated. There are many sources of education, e.g. the Bible,
authority figures etc that can help us to make sound moral judgements by giving us access to the knowledge
we need. This explains why different people make different judgements
 Conscience binds us, we have to follow it. Since we have synderesis, it follows that we must also
choose to do what our conscience tells us is the right thing in a certain case. Otherwise, we are disobeying the
most basic moral principle of all; we choose evil even though we know we should choose good. Christians
believe that, because our basic awareness of moral principles comes from God, disobeying conscience is
tantamount to disobeying God.

40. Butler on Conscience
 Butler was a Bishop in the Church of England. He believed, as Aquinas did, that we
have a God-given ability to reason.
 For Butler, conscience seems to be a combination of the cognitive faculty (a faculty
that gives knowledge of what is right and wrong, although it is unclear how) and an
emotive faculty (this creates feelings of obligation, remorse etc).
 Conscience does not speak to us in general rules and formulas, it just gives us the
ability to use reason to weigh up factors in a moral decision.
 Butler says we have a number of influences, but the conscience should not be seen
as merely one among many drives or passions. The conscience should have ultimate
authority over all of our instincts: “Had it strength, as it has right; had it power, as it
has manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world”.
 You might sum up Butler’s view by saying that a good person is someone who has
his or her priorities well sorted, with the promptings of conscience ranking highest
among them.

41. Butler’s Conscience:
Problems
 How can he explain why different people’s consciences
conflict if conscience is a moral sense through which we
just know what is right and wrong? Since conscience is to
be the supreme moral authority, its dictates must be
legitimate by definition.
 If conscience is an infallible guide from God, why would we
need any sort of moral reasoning?
 Butler says that conscience can lead to decision that are
not “agreeable to truth and virtue”If conscience is only right
if it conforms to what we know of truth and virtue, then our
knowledge of truth and virtue is the ultimate authority, not
conscience.

42. Newman on Conscience
 Newman was an Anglican theologian who converted to Roman Catholicism and became a Cardinal. Newman's
view on the conscience can be seen as intuitionist, which makes his approach quite different from Butler and
Aquinas.
 He says that our conscience is "the voice of God" completely distinct from our will or desires. It is an innate
principle planted in us before we had the ability to reason.
 A law of the mind
 Newman described conscience as a 'law of the mind', but he did not see it as giving us commandments to follow.
The conscience is not a set of rules, a feeling of guilt or something that we obey in order to gain a reward from
God. It is a clear indication of what is right:
 It was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise...
 Newman is often quoted as saying he would drink a toast to the Pope, but to the conscience first. Seeing the full
quote, this is an unfortunate epitaph, as Newman wasn't about to drink to either:
 Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I
shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards .
 Newman was merely saying, like Butler and Aquinas before him, that the conscience should have ultimate
authority.
 BUT there are problems with this:
◦ Where is the proof for this theory?
◦ Why would people’s views conflict if conscience is the voice of God?
◦ What about autonomy and free will?

43. Freud
 According to Freud, we have 3 structures to our personality:
◦ The id – an unconscious reservoir of instinctual drives largely dominated by the pleasure
principle
◦ The ego – the conscious structure that operates on the reality principle to mediate the
demands of the id, society and the physical world. It puts rules upon and controls the id.
◦ The superego – the ego of another superimposed on our own to regulate our behaviour using
guilt. This is usually the ego of our parents or authority figures.
It is important to remember that Freud never set out to make a theory on conscience. The super-
ego IS NOT the same as a conscience.
The formation of the superego begins when we are just children. As we develop, the need to be
loved is a basic need and drive. We fear punishment as it represents a withdrawal of love. To
protect ourselves, we internalise the rules and standards given to us by anyone who has
authority over us. They become like a “moral policeman” to us.
This moral policeman (super-ego) tells us we have been good when we do what we have been
told us to do, and makes us feel guilty when we do not do what we should.

44. Freud
 An example of this: “Look both ways before crossing”. When we hear this as children, we do not
follow it because we have learnt the value of safety enshrined in the command, but because of
the authority of the person telling us to do it.
 The superego is therefore an internalised mechanism to regulate behaviour so as to avoid
punishment and stay safe. It acts out of the fear of punishment and the need for acceptance.
 The superego and conscience are very different things. When we act out of fear of losing love or
out of our need to be accepted and approved, the superego is at work. When we act out of love
for others and in response to the call to commit ourselves to values, the moral conscience is
involved. Perhaps we have both a conscience and a superego.
 The superego in children is not the same as it is in adults. In children it is a primitive but
necessary stage on the way to a true moral conscience. In adults, it works well in conjunction
with a mature conscience so we just have to make decisions once and then learn.
 To be able to say we are acting in conscience, there must be a greater influence of the
internalised values we own over the superego and the pull of social pressure to conform.

45. Superego Conscience
Commands us to act for the sake of gaining approval or
out of fear of losing love.
Responds to an invitation of love, which creates self-
value and love for others.
Encourages us to act with the aim of making others love
us.
More oriented towards other people and encourages us
to think of others’ needs.
You merely repeat a prior command and you’re unable
to function creatively in a new situation. You just follow
the rules.
You can combine the rules with your own values in
order to respond in new ways
Legalistic – you simply do what the authority figures say
and blindly obey
You can ignore the commands of authority figures if
values override the commands.
Each separate action is judged on its own merits and
they are not seen in the larger context or pattern of
actions
Our actions make up one big pattern which is to be
judged all together
It is oriented toward the past – all about the way we
were and how we will never change
Oriented toward the future – the person one ought to
become. You add to what you learnt as a child
Punishment plays a big role in reconciliation: If I am
severely punished, I will never do it again
You are allowed to make mistakes. If I did something
wrong in the past, I can plan to do it right from now on
which means its ok that I did wrong in the first place.
You can easily get rid of your guilt by confessing your
actions to an authority figure
Guilt lasts longer because you have to take the time to
grow and change
The significance of authority figures matters more than
the rule itself. E.g. my Mum tells me to wash my hands,
my little sister tells me to be kind. I may feel more guilty
for disobeying Mum’s command even though it holds
less real value.
The value is the thing that really matters. Experience of
guilt is proportionate to your knowledge and freedom as
well as the value at stake.