Beginning with Quiz 2 and the second assignment, you will be asked to support your ethical views by naming and describing ETHICAL THEORIES and ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.

Last year some students were confused about this, so I am posting this description of ethical theories and principles.

Ethical theories are concepts we use to know what is right and wrong. Ethical arguments for whether something is right or wrong are based on "logical extensions of ethical theories" (class lecture). Ethical arguments are a peaceful way to resolve conflicts in values (class lecture).

ETHICAL THEORIES include these:

(1) NATURAL LAW. This theory is based on a person's concept of nature and how it functions. Some people observe in nature that the strong dominate/eat/exploit the weak, and so they reason that this is just how nature is, and thus is ethical. Natural Law has been used to claim that slavery and the Holocaust were ethical.

A problem with Natural Law claims is that what creatures do or have done does not mean we must or should do the same thing.

Natural Law isn't always used to justify atrocities. Some people use the theory of "Natural Law" to support kindness, as well, since they observe that nature also involves creatures helping each other. For example, families often are based on loving relationships, so one can perceive this as a Natural Law and conclude that it is ethical to help others and treat others (for example, other humans, even ones we don't know) as family.

(2) VIRTUE ETHICS: According to this theory, a person with good character will behave ethically, so we must encourage good character.

(3) CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. This theory says that ethical behaviors are those that you would want to universalize (you would want everyone to do), and behaviors that do not use others as a means to an end. The Categorical Imperative refers to an unyielding duty to do what reason tells us to do, such as not let myself do something that others can't or shouldn’t do.

A. You should be able to universalize what you do, according to the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ethical theory. For example, if it is good for me to pull leaves off a tree, then it should be good for everyone to do so. If it is *not* good for everyone to pull leaves off a tree (since that will leave no leaves and the tree may die), then *I* should not pull any leaves off, either. (I had to explain this to my 5-year-old fairly often, because he liked to pull off leaves).

Another application of this "universal principle" of the Categorical Imperative would be in deciding if it is ethical for a person to have 3 kids. If *all* people had 3 kids, and all those kids had 3 kids, and all the grandkids had 3 kids, etc., etc., eventually the planet would be completely overrun, and someone in the future would not be able to have any kids at all (or, they'd have 3 kids, but there'd be no food and clean water left, and they'd die). So, having 3 kids is wrong, one could argue, using the Categorical Imperative, which requires me to be able to universalize what I do.

B. You should not use others as a means to an end, according to the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ethical theory. For example, I should not ask someone to walk toward a landmine to detonate it so that I can then walk there without being hurt. Using a person as a means to an end like this would be immoral according to the
(4) RIGHTS: there are protected privileges that all people (or other beings, depending on one's beliefs) deserve, and these rights are inherent to their being. For example: the right not to be killed, the right to vote, the right to own possessions, the right to fair compensation for one's labor.

(5) UTILITARIANISM. This theory holds that we must seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example, Peter Singer would say that the pain of the hungry people in the world outweighs the pleasure of the well-off, so world hunger is unethical, and the wealthy should share some of their wealth.

Utilitarianism can have a "scary" side, because it can be used to rationalize that sacrificing a few people is worth it if you can save many by doing so. For example, if I were to give an experimental drug to some children, against their will, in order to save millions of other children, this may be ethical according to Utilitarianism...but also horrifying (if I believe people have a Right not to be killed or used against their will as a means to an end).

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES include the following:

(1) NON-MALEFICENCE (do no harm; stop doing harm). Note that this is a very powerful argument for ending world hunger (look at Pogge’s views in Section 2), because there are so many ways in which wealthy countries are harming developing nations. If we simply stop doing these harms, then developing countries would be much better off.

Doing no harm does not just mean standing by and doing nothing: it includes taking actions to stop the harm we are doing.

For example, using the example provided by Dr. Ford, if we are pushing a drowning child underwater, non-maleficence would mean we must take the action of letting her up to breathe. If we are forcing developing nations to pay huge debts plus interest that prevent them from investing in their own people, then we should stop forcing them to pay debts (especially when bad dictators often were responsible for taking out loans offered by wealthy nations and then misspending that money).

(2) BENEFICENCE (do good; help others).

(3) JUSTICE (promote fairness, equality of treatment; inequity is unfair).

(4) AUTONOMY: people can make decisions for themselves about their lives. For example, if someone decided that you were going to have to switch your major to chemical engineering (I'm assuming you are not studying chemical engineering), without giving you a choice, then you would have lost autonomy and that would be unethical according to this principle.

(5) PATERNALISM: deciding for others. An example: most people feel adults should care for and make decisions for young children. However, paternalism toward an adult, or a developing country, takes away autonomy (which would be bad if you value autonomy).

ONE IMPORTANT POINT which may not be explained clearly in the lectures is that RELIGION and INTUITION are starting points many people use when considering whether something is ethical, but they are not accepted as strong arguments in ethical discussions because people's religious beliefs and intuition can be different and strong and unable to be changed (easily). If one person believes a god says, "Eat people," and another person believes a god says, "Eat only vegetables," then they can argue and argue, saying what their different gods tell them, but they will never resolve a difference in opinion (based on religion).

Similarly, INTUITION, in which you just have the feeling that something is wrong, may be what motivates you to consider the ethics of some action, but it is just a starting point in analyzing whether it is moral. For example, when I was 5 years old I saw someone crush the head of a fish with a rock, and I was horrified and scared and sad for the fish. I just felt intuitively that it was wrong to go out of one's way to hurt another being. When I was told that I would have to eat the fish for dinner or else have no dinner at all, I chose to have no dinner, because I *felt* what people had done to that fish was wrong.

Now, as an adult, I could use ethical theories and principles to explain why killing a fish may be considered unethical. I could explain that under the Categorial Imperative I should not use someone (a sentient being) as a means to an end, so I should not kill a fish or support people killing it. Instead, I should follow the ethical principle of non-maleficence, or do no harm. I could also argue that according to Utilitarianism, the slight pleasure I may gain from eating a fish is outweighed by the pain and loss of life experienced by the fish.

Fallacies in ethical arguments are described in the section on Ethics and Hunger. An example of a fallacy in an ethical argument would be people citing the majority ("If everyone does it, it must be ethical/moral/okay").

I hope the above helps you prepare and support your ethical arguments when answering quiz questions and writing assignments.

--Erica

Erica Fuchs
World Food Issues teaching assistant