Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics is more right or wrong
Natural sciences ethics
Ethics is more right or wrong
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics is more right or wrong
Michael Ruse argues that "The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics." (p.297) He begins with a distinction between the normative and the meta-ethical, and then sets out to lay the foundations for normative ethics as a biologically driven adaptive function. He then moves on to justifying why we ought to behave as biology influences us to do, where he runs into a problem.
People feel certain ways about what is right and what is wrong, Ruse begins, and these feelings are what become the moral maxims we follow (p299). We feel this way and obey our feelings because "it is in our interest to do so." (p.299) Ruse explores Rawls's theory of justice, citing game theory as a reason why fairness becomes normative. People don't know which position in life they'll end up with, so it's in their interest to choose a society that treats everyone fairly (p299-300). Ruse quotes Rawls, who says that fairness promotes both group stability and individual longevity within the group [which would tend to favor continued reproduction] (p300).
Ruse then illustrates how emotional response influences what we come to believe is ethically correct behavior. A parent, he says, feels more attachment to his or her own child than to children in another country. Normally, a parent will tend to his or her own child before attending to a stranger. And when a parent does the opposite, Ruse says, we tend to look on that person as being neglectful of his or her duty to family. That emotional attachment to family is biological, and so it makes sense that we would consider it the moral thing to ensure family welfare before general welfare (p301). Ruse expands on this, citing Singer's allusion to two moral dilemmas, in which the proposed action is logic...
... middle of paper ...
...stinction error, he's essentially removed the ethics from ethics. Behavior that doesn't have any more compulsory basis than eating, sleeping, or excreting doesn't seem to me to qualify as ethical in nature. Ruse doesn't seem to view this as much of a hurdle; he seems to feel that if one thinks his behavior is ethical, then it is ethical. Philosophically speaking, however, a system without any foundation can never leave the arena of the descriptive. Ruse may be comfortable with his argument as it is; however, I do not think that one can claim that there is no ground and then say in the same breath that Biology or any other science is the ground, for ethics or any other branch of reasoning.
Works Cited
Ruse, M. (2010). The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics. In F. Ayala & R. Arp (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology, Wiley-Blackwell.
In “Toward a Universal Ethics,” written by Michael Gazzaniga, a question is posed to coax his audience toward a science based ethics. “The question is, Do we have an innate moral sense as a species, and if so, can we recognize and accept it on it’s own terms? It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.”(Gazzaniga, 420 para. 6). Gazzaniga answers the question for us, but he was wrong to assume that the brain’s systematic response to moral situations means that science should dictate ethics and morality. Instead, ethics and morality should be considered a part of humanity, which is influenced and balanced by many things including science, religion, and individual
In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
Sandel addresses these views that us as humans have come to acknowledge as our own through bioethical debate. “We live in a world today where ‘science moves faster than moral understanding,’(Lewens)”
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ingram, David, and Jennifer A. Parks. "Biomedical Ethics." The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2002. N. pag. Print.
I have read the Theory of Justice and I have found it wanting in both scope and realism. The difference principle proposed by Rawls, his second principle, is the focus of my critique. While this paper will not focus solely on the second principle, all analysis done within this essay are all targeted towards the scope of influence that Rawls treats the second principle with. Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle.
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
...that human morals are a result of evolutionary tendencies. Based on his study in animal behavior, chimpanzees and bonobos in particular, he records evidence of moral behavior in chimpanzees. A significant point that de Waal makes if that animals have not developed to morality to the level exhibited in humans. They do however exhibit behaviors that make up the roots of morality. “Are animals moral? Let us simply say they occupy several floors of the tower of morality” (181). On the contrary, scientists against morality in animals argue that the alleged moral behaviors in animals are due to anthropomorphism and that morality results from religion. The question of morality in animals will most likely remain a complex and controversial question even with increase in research. This is because the argument is based on perspective which is influenced by cultural biases.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
The ethical system that I propose has the goal of what is ultimately good for human beings. The ultimate good of human beings lie in going beyond their individual needs because instinctually animals strive to fulfill their individual bio-organic ne...
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism according to Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it.
Health care providers are faced with bioethical issues every day when caring for a wide variety of patients. Bioethical principles are outlined in order to help these professionals provide the best possible care for their clients. The first principle focuses on the autonomy of individuals. This is the foundation of “informed consent” that is required before performing any medical care on a patient. The patient must completely understand the benefits and risks associated with any medical acts and make their own decision. The second principle states that no intentional harm or injury to the patient can result from the medical decision. This principle of nonmaleficence helps set standards of care to prevent wrongdoing. Beneficence is the third bioethical principle that states that it is the responsibility of the health care provider to benefit the patient. The fourth bioethical principle refers to justice and that each patient is treated with fairness. Every patient is entitled to impartial medical care to ensure the appropriate distribution of goods and services (McCormick, 2013). These bioethical principles help guide health care professionals when making difficult decisions related to controversial topics and practices.