10. Introduction to Ethics 1

This is a summary of what the subject of ethics is about.

In the theory and application of ethics there are two broad categories. On one hand there is what is called value and on the other hand there is what is called action.

Value in ethics is about what is good and what is bad (or, more properly, valuable and disvaluable). The idea here is that there are things that can be good or bad and outcomes and events that can be good or bad. What could make some thing or some outcome good or bad, or valuable or disvaluable, is the big issue. Another issue regarding value is figuring out the consequences that entail to what we should or should not do about things that are good or bad; in other words, how value should affect our actions.

Action in ethics is about right and wrong in what people do. The idea here is that some of the things people do can be right or wrong, and also some of the things that people do not do can be right or wrong. Determining what makes people's actions right or wrong is the big issue here. Another issue is figuring out what to do about the occurrence of actions that are right or wrong; in other words, how we should react to right or wrong actions.

To start an overview of what ethics is all about, it is easiest to start with the category of action.

Fundamental to the ethical theory of action is the idea of rules. We are surrounded by rules in many forms. There are so many rules floating around out there that its hard to keep track of them, let alone abide by them. We spend a lot of time wrangling over the rules, especially in cases where we are supposed to follow the rules when we don't want to or when it hurts to do so, or to not break them even if it would feel great for us to do so. The fact that we sometimes do what rules say and we sometimes don't doesn't change the fact that there are rules telling us what to do or not do. This is to say that, with all the rules out there, sometimes we follow the rules and sometimes we break them. The ethical theory of action makes use of a special case of rules, and has special things to say about what it means to follow them and to break them.

(A) First consider some important things about rules in general.

(1) Rules are general statements of what we should do or what we should not do.

Furthermore, wherever they apply, they have nothing to do with whether we do what we should do or not. Rules don’t describe behavior, they are normative; they tell us what is required of us, regardless of what we are actually doing.

Just to be clear on terminology, note that its possible to state rules in many different linguistic forms, such as these:

Don't do A.

Do B.

You must do C.

Don't ever do D.

You ought to do E.

But for clarity and simplicity it is best to express all rules in one form only:

You should do/should not do X.

So the key word ‘should’ is going to be used specifically for rules in general.

(2) Essential to the idea of rules is the notion of their justification.

Far and away more important than keeping track of rules is figuring out what rules actually apply to us and why they do so. When we go out and do something, someone may tell us that we broke a rule, but usually all they do is tell us how we broke it; they don't tell us why that rule is supposed to be followed. To determine whether a rule must be followed, it is necessary to figure out if the rule is actually justified. To say that a rule is justified is to say that there is something that makes true what the rule states. For example: We are told that we should not steal. But then we may ask: “Is this rule really justified; is it true that we should not steal? What kind of thing would make it true that we should not steal?” For this rule to be justified there would have to be something behind it making true its stated requirements.

What rules are justified and what are not is an important issue because if there is nothing that makes it true that, for example, we should not steal, then we can. The rules that are justified as the ones we have to follow; the ones that are not justified, we don't. If there is nothing that would make it true that we should not steal, if there is nothing that would justify a rule against stealing, then when people say that you should not steal, they are saying nothing more than that they don't like stealing, similar to them saying that they don't like pistachio ice cream, for example. But the fact that other people out there don't like pistachio ice cream means nothing to us; we are free to indulge in all the pistachio ice cream we want if it is what we like. When someone makes a report of what they like or do not like, this is not something that means anything to us about what we should like or not, let alone what we should do or not do.

By the way, to say that it is true that we should do so-and-so according to a rule may be a somewhat stilted way of saying things. There are a number of other ways of expressing the consequences of justified rules. If a rule is justified, we can say that it is a rule in effect on us, or that we are bound by it, or that we must follow it, or that it is a rule in force, or things like that.

(3) There are different kinds of rules.

What makes rules fall into one kind or another is the nature of the "should" part of any statement about what we should do. In other words, even though its strange to say it, there are different kinds of “should” out there. There are rules out there about what you should do in a practical sense, or what you should do in a rational sense, or what you should do in a logical sense, and in other kinds of senses.

(4) How rules are justified depends on what kind of rule they are.

To illustrate this, consider three different kinds of ordinary rules (practical, legal, social) and some characteristics in which they are different. These rule types will be compared in terms of the following criteria:

Evaluation: The different ways in which rule types evaluate actions that either keep those rules or break those rules.

Application: The reasons why the types of rules apply to us, or in other words, why those rules are relevant to us.

Justification: The reasons why particular rules are true, or, what backs them up.

(a) Practical rules:

An example of a practical rule: You should not look directly at the Sun.

Evaluation: In our actions we sometimes break practical rules and we sometimes keep them. In either case, there are special terms used when we evaluate that action according to the rule. Generally, when you obey this type of rule we say that your action was wise (or pragmatic, etc.); when you break it, we say that action was unwise (or foolish, etc.).

Application: Practical rules such as this one apply to us, or are relevant to us, or are important to us, because of the facts of the world we live in. If the world were different, what is practical and what is impractical would be different.

Justification: This rule is justified because looking directly at the Sun will damage your eyes. This is a fact of the world and of us that makes it true that you should not look directly at the Sun.

(b) Legal rules:

An example of a legal rule (for most people at least): You should drive on the right-hand side of the road.

Evaluation: In our actions we sometimes break legal rules and we sometimes keep them, and we have special terms for each. When you follow a legal rule, we say that your action was legal (or something similar) and when you break a legal rule we say that your action was illegal.

Application: Legal rules such as this one apply to us, or are relevant to us, because of some jurisdiction we happen to be in. If you are in the jurisdiction area of a legal code, then they apply to you; if you are outside of that jurisdiction area, they don’t. Note that this particular rule example illustrates that jurisdiction effect: There are legal jurisdictions where this particular rule does not apply; instead the opposite does, where the law states that you should drive on the left-hand side of the road.

Justification: Legal rules anywhere go through some sort of legislative process where they are considered or proposed as possible laws, weighed or debated or mulled over somehow, and then passed through that legislative process somehow into a binding law. Its that process and result which is the fact behind a legal rule that makes it binding. A rule that does not go through some legislative process may be a rule of some other kind, but it does not count as a legal rule.

An example of a social rule: You should not burp out loud.

Evaluation: When you keep to a social rule, we say that your action was polite (or some equivalent); and when you break a rule we say that your action was rude.

Application: Social rules apply to us or are relevant to us because of the expectations within the society we happen to be a part of or happen to be in. This is similar to legal jurisdiction, but note that its not exactly the same, because many times people from different societies or different cultures who are visiting others will be “given a pass” when they do something that would normally be considered rude. So social rules are more relevant to the society you are from than the society you are in.

Justification: What would make it true that you should not burp out loud would be the expectations of others that this is “just not done” and most certainly is not what is expected of you; and of course these expectations of others around you could be either of how people should behave, or of how people from your society should behave.

(B) Now consider the special case of ethical rules.

Action theory in ethics is about that special kind of rules that are called ethical or moral rules. Its concerned with what those special rules are about, what they are really saying, how they apply to us, and why they apply to us. In the end, the real task of action theory is to figure out what ethical rules are justified and why. In order to bring out the issues that ethical theory deals with, consider a comparison between ethical rules and the rule examples above (practical, legal, social), using the same format used for them.

Ethical rules:

An example of an ethical rule: You should not steal.

Evaluation: When you keep to an ethical rule, we say that your action was right; when you break it, we say that your action was wrong. Note that it is common to encounter the attitude that right and wrong has some kind of mystical or loaded connotation to it, but that is entirely misguided. For example, the use of these terms does not involve any “judgment” of a person’s value or a lack of it. The whole idea of right and wrong is actually nothing more than this: The terms we use to evaluate behavior according to ethical rules, whether that behavior follows them or not.

Application: Ethical rules apply to us or are relevant to us specifically because of the kind of things we are and the relationships that we are in. They are relevant to us because of what we are as persons, that we are rational and deliberative, and that we are in relationships with other persons. Ethical rules have no application to rocks, for example, as rocks just do what the forces of nature make them do. Ethical rules do not apply to the plants and animals either, they just do what natural forces and instinctual drives make them do. Neither the trees nor the squirrels deliberate and choose a course of action, nor do they have any obligations to each other. Persons, however, are things that are rational (in the sense of having a potential to choose) and deliberative (in the sense of comparing choices from a range of options), and have relationship obligations. Since we have the ability to choose one way or another and actually do make those choices committing ourselves, only we can do right or wrong.

Now the last issue, the justification of ethical rules, is the real heart of the matter from here on out in the subject of ethics. The central issue of ethical theory, what it is that would make ethical rules true and binding upon us, is something that is not settled at all. The problem is that there have been and still are many competing views about the justification of ethical rules, and it is very much up in the air how good these views are. Some theories that have been proposed are easily shot down, but many others remain that have a lot going for them. Future installments in this series will review all of these in detail.

(published 10/11/19)

Reader Comment: It’s still odd to ask a question as to “whether or not a rule is justified”. It seems much more clear and normal to ask whether havinga rule is justified. For example, whether we are justified in having a law against something.

Writer Response: That’s completely reasonable, and points out that this is actually a narrow and special use of the concept of justification. And this is why another way of understanding rule justification is to put it like this: Consider what it is that would make a rule binding upon us.

On the other hand, being justified in having a rule against something is actually better put as having good reasons for it, as in: We have good reasons to have a rule against so-and-so, or a law against such-and-such. And having good reasons to have a law against something is what provides the motive for a legislative process to consider it and pass it and put it into force.