Book chapter
2. Fundamentals of Ethics
Abstract
There is so much yet unknown about our world. And those who are curious havea vast number of resources to gain insights with. However, there are numerousquestions that will never be answered such as: ”Do humans have a free will?”,”How can language carry meaning?” or ”What is knowledge?”. Of course, one can seek help from books or experts. However, if we are interested in knowing what our guiding ideals should be, what is worth living for, or how we should treat others, then we must turn to philosophy. The branches of philosophy shed light on the various fundamental questions about the endless possibilities and limitations one might face. There are many branches that are still usedin contemporary philosophy, however, seven branches have been expanded: (1)meta-physics / Ontology, (2) epistemology, (3) Logic, (4) axiology, (5) Ethics,(6) aesthetics and (7) politics.
Philosophy has an interest in a large array of subject matters. However, within philosophical discourse, some subject matters are more common than others. In the third section of this chapter, four areas of philosophical researchof frequent occurrence have been discussed: philosophy of language, philosophyof mind, philosophy of technology, and philosophy of mathematics. Philosophyof language is an area of philosophical research that focuses on the nature oflanguage and its relation to the world. Related questions include: What makes it possible that people understand each other through the use of language? How can meaning manifest itself in language? What is the meaning of meaning? Philosophy of mind is an area of philosophical research that is concerned with thenature of consciousness and its relation to the body. The mind-body problemis an ongoing debate that is essential to this domain of research. It originated from the philosophical works of René Descartes. Descartes posited that mindand matter were substantially different. But if that is the case, how does oneaffect the other? Philosophy of mathematics is an area of philosophical research that investigates the foundation of mathematics. Unlike any scientist, mathematicians acquire knowledge solely through the deduction of basic principles. But what is the status of this analytical type of knowledge? And how does itrelate to the world at large? Philosophers of mathematics ask such questions. Philosophy of technology is an area of philosophical research that is concerned with the constitution of technology and its complex effects on society. Moreover, the relationship between technology and the sciences is also under scrutiny.
Ethics is a part of philosophy about human behavior. It reflects on the why and how of human behavior. Both ethics and morality discuss the ”right” and”wrong” conduct, but in ethics, those are constructed by external rules, where as morals come from one’s individual beliefs. Ethics can be divided into three main categories: meta ethics, normative ethics and descriptive ethics. meta ethics is about questions regarding the nature of ethical statements, normative ethics goes into the recommendations about how moral systems should operate. Lastly, descriptive ethics is about people’s beliefs on morality.
There are three major approaches to normative ethics, which are deontological ethics, consequentialism, and virtue ethics. Deontological ethics and consequentialism both have ideas about what is right or wrong, but there is oneimportant difference between the two. This difference concerns the subject that is being evaluated as right or wrong. Deontological ethics focuses on whether an action itself is right or wrong, rather than on the consequences of that action. Consequentialists do the exact opposite: their focus is on the result of theaction. virtue ethics, on the other hand, can be identified as the approach thatemphasizes virtues and moral character.
Ethical dilemmas are often tough to solve, but approaching them structurally reduces the effort it takes to solve the dilemma. By dividing an ethical dilemma into a conflict of goals and a conflict of values, combined with ethics, morals, laws and policies, a better oversight is created. In order to solve ethical dilemmas methodically, two different methods are highlighted: the square of values and value sensitive design. The square of values shows the balance between opposing values, and how a proper balance is healthy in order to maintain the integrity of the value. The value sensitive design shows how to approach an ethical issue by dividing the discovery of a solution into three steps: the initial solution provided by the developers, the workshop solution provided by the ethical committee and the regulative idea which could be provided if there were unlimited funds.
Knowledge clip
| [1] | S. H. Schwartz et al., “Refining the theory of basic individual values”, Journal of personality and social psychology, vol 103, no 4, bl 663, 2012. |
| [2] | J. A. Yesavage, “Geriatric depression scale”, Psychopharmacol Bull, vol 24, no 4, bll 709–711, 1988. |
| [3] | J. Deigh, An introduction to ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2010. |
| [4] | D. Hume, An enquiry concerning human understanding: A critical edition, vol 3. Oxford University Press, 2000. |
| [5] | G. Spielthenner, “The is-ought problem in practical ethics”, in HEC Forum, 2017, vol 29, bll 277–292. |
| [6] | J. Frieser, “Ethics”. University of Tennessee at Martin. |
| [7] | T. Hobbes, Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Hackett Publishing, 1994. |
| [8] | I. Kant, Ethical philosophy: the complete texts of Grounding for the metaphysics of morals, and Metaphysical principles of virtue, part II of The metaphysics of morals, with On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Hackett Publishing, 1994. |
| [9] | J. M. Cooper en D. S. Hutchinson, Plato: complete works. Hackett Publishing, 1997. |
| [10] | M. Crotty, “Introduction: The research process”, The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, bll 1–17, 1998. |
| [11] | N. K. Denzin en Y. S. Lincoln, “Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research”, 2008. |
| [12] | A. Ahmed, “Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions: Qualitative versus Quantitative”, Online Submission, 2008. |
| [13] | E. G. Guba en Y. S. Lincoln, “Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences”, 2005. |
| [14] | J. J. Mark, “Philosophy”. World History Encyclopedia, 2020. |
| [15] | D. Edmonds en N. Warburton, Philosophy bites. OUP Oxford, 2010. |
| [16] | J. J. Mark, “Protagoras”. World History Encyclopedia, 2009. |
| [17] | B. Tomar, “Axiology in teacher education: Implementation and challenges”, IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, vol 4, no 2, bll 51–54, 2014. |
| [18] | W. V. Quine, Philosophy of logic. Harvard University Press, 1986. |
| [19] | M. Tufail, “Axiology”, Okt 2012. |
| [20] | T. L. Edu en T. L. Edu, “Branches of Philosophy”. Sep-2021. |
| [21] | B. Russell, Analysis of mind. Routledge, 2005. |
| [22] | “The divisions and definition of philosophy”. 2010. |
| [23] | E. M. Pybus, “Saints and Heroes”, Philosophy, vol 57, no 220, bll 193–199, 1982. |
| [24] | J. O. Urmson, “Saints and Heroes”, in Essays in Moral Philosophy, A. I. Melden, Red University of Washington Press, 1958. |
| [25] | L. Strauss, “What is Political Philosophy?”, The Journal of Politics, vol 19, no 3, bll 343–368, 1957. |
| [26] | “Philosophy: Branches of philosophy”. Saint Francis University Library, Aug-2020. |
| [27] | R. C. Jeffrey en J. P. Burgess, Formal logic: Its scope and limits. Hackett Publishing, 2006. |
| [28] | M. Meleen, “Examples of Logic: 4 Main Types of Reasoning”. 2020. |
| [29] | M. A. Aroskar, “Anatomy of an ethical dilemma: The theory”, AJN The American Journal of Nursing, vol 80, no 4, bll 658–660, 1980. |
| [30] | K. N. Allen en B. D. Friedman, “Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work values”, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, vol 7, no 2, bll 1–12, 2010. |
| [31] | G. C. Hazard Jr, “Law, morals, and ethics”, S. Ill. ULJ, vol 19, bl 447, 1994. |
| [32] | D. Hume en G. Sayre-McCord, Moral philosophy. Springer, 2006. |
| [33] | G. Scarre, Utilitarianism. Routledge, 2020. |
| [34] | S. Linde en K. Linde-Leimer, “THE SOFT SKILLS PROFILE”. |
| [35] | D. P. Stroh, “Conflicting goals: structural tension at its worst”, 2020. |
| [36] | G. Hatfield, “René descartes”, 2008. |
| [37] | W. G. Lycan, Philosophy of language: A contemporary introduction. Routledge, 2018. |
| [38] | H. Putnam, “Meaning and reference”, The journal of philosophy, vol 70, no 19, bll 699–711, 1974. |
| [39] | H. Putnam, “The meaning of meaning”, Philosophical papers, vol 2, 1975. |
| [40] | L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Routledge, 2013. |
| [41] | L. Horsten, “Philosophy of mathematics”, 2007. |
| [42] | H. Jonas, “Toward a philosophy of technology”, Hastings Center Report, bll 34–43, 1979. |
| [43] | W. S. Robinson, “Dualism”, in The Routledge Handbook Of Consciousness, Routledge, 2018, bll 51–63. |
| [44] | D. J. Chalmers, “On sense and intension”, Philosophical perspectives, vol 16, bll 135–182, 2002. |
| [45] | G. Hatfield, “René descartes”, 2008. |
| [46] | E. N. Zalta, “Gottlob Frege”, 1995. |
| [47] | J. Kawall, “In defense of the primary of the virtues”, J. Ethics & Soc. Phil., vol 3, bl i, 2008. |
| [48] | M. Paquette, E. J. Sommerfeldt, en M. L. Kent, “Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics”, Public Relations Review, vol 41, no 1, bll 30–39, 2015. |
| [49] | J. McDowell, “Virtue and reason”, The monist, vol 62, no 3, bll 331–350, 1979. |
| [50] | G. Watson, O. Flanagan, en A. Rorty, “On the primacy of character”, Virtue Ethics: A Critical Reader, bll 56–81, 1997. |
| [51] | J. Mandal, D. K. Ponnambath, en S. C. Parija, “Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine”, Tropical parasitology, vol 6, no 1, bl 5, 2016. |
| [52] | M. Franssen, G.-J. Lokhorst, en I. Van de Poel, “Philosophy of technology”, 2009. |
| [53] | K. Jahn et al., “More than Ticking Off a Checklist? Towards an Approach for Quantifying the Effectiveness of Responsible Innovation in the Design Process”, in Wirtschaftsinformatik (Community Tracks), 2020, bll 311–320. |
| [54] | S. Munro, “Ethics explainer: Deontology”. Feb-2016. |
| [55] | “Deontology”. mcCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin, Jan-2021. |
| [56] | “Virtue Ethics”. McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin, Jan-2021. |
| [57] | “Consequentialism”. McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin, Des-2018. |
| [58] | R. Hursthouse en G. Pettigrove, “Virtue ethics”. Stanford University, Des-2016. |
| [59] | L. Alexander en M. Moore, “Deontological ethics”. Stanford University, Okt-2020. |
| [60] | S. Chakrabarty en A. E. Bass, “Comparing virtue, consequentialist, and deontological ethics-based corporate social responsibility: Mitigating microfinance risk in institutional voids”, Journal of business ethics, vol 126, no 3, bll 487–512, 2015. |
| [61] | L. Alexander en M. Moore, “Consequentialism”. Stanford University, Okt-2019. |