Brief overview  & critique of of  five ethical systems: 
Situation Ethics, Proportionalism, Utilitarianism, Traditional Judeo Christian Moral Norm:/

1.  Situation Ethics (also called context ethics or contextualism)
An ethical system wherein one's actions are based on the "most loving" thing/act in each given situation.

• supporters claim:

• Uniqueness of each human act
• it is essential that humans be free of all constraints to decide any way we want depending on the situation

• Opponents claim the following problems:
• Nothing is immoral in itself
• We can't simplify human complexity
• situation isn't the sole deciding factor for making judgments

2.  Proportionalism (or consequentialism in its extreme form)
This is an ethical system wherein one weighs good and bad effects in order to determine the proper action.
Difficulties with proportionalism:

• Nothing is evil in itself.  We have to wait until we see the consequences.
• Proportionalism implies that what is good is not really good, but merely better.
• Denies that each moral action humanizes and each immoral action dehumanizes, independent of consequences.   This denies that we are what we do (evil or good).   Thus proportionalism claims we can separate ourselves from our actions - that our body and spirit can be separated.
• It may encourage one to do a small evil to produce a greater good (i.e., steal to help finances, lie to save face or prevent conflict)
• Proportionalism implies  we are able to weigh incommensurable goods and foresee all consequences.  Is life more complex than Dear Abby?
• Proportionalism is very subjective.  Moral visions vary  and shouldn't our moral vision grow daily?

3.  Utilitarianism:  An ethical system based on usefulness - net efficiency, pragmatism - the purpose of all action should be to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number. "Pain & pleasure are the measure."  (Jeremy Bentham 1748 - 1832)
Concerns:

• Should pleasure be the standard for morality? Can the human mind calculate the pain or pleasure that would result from any given action?  Can pleasure alone form a valid distinction between right and wrong?
• Can the end justify the means.

4.  Kantian Ethics (1727 - 1824)
Categorical Imperative: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature

Kant wanted to establish an ethical norm based on reason that all could follow and therefore it would be enduring, perennial and universal.

Concerns with Kant's system:

• Kant wanted an objective norm and got a subjective norm, as Kantian ethics is rooted in the individual.  Morality depends on each person's moral vision.  Law is equated with the lawgiver.
• Kantian ethics stands in contradiction to ethical systems that believe in the effects of original sin (Romans 7:15 "I cannot eve understand my own actions. I do not do what i want."  Kant assumes , like some early philosophers) that correct ethical action is appealing to everyone. is this in harmony with the general psychological condition of all mankind?  Does man seek the immediate good (chocolate cake) or the long-term good?    
•  

5.  Traditional  Judeo Christian Moral Norm:  
ACI ( Act, Circumstance & Intention)

All three must be right

Example:
Act:    theft

Circumstance:
  Who did this?
  Didn't they know better?
  Was force involved?
  How much money was taken and from whom?
  How much harm?
  Where was it done?

Intention:  intention is really a circumstance, but it is so important because it is the reason a person acts.  

( I limit my eating to be healthy, to live a long life and to be sociable - or do I limit my eating to be anorexic - so the intention can change a good object into one that is questionable or wrong.)

In short ACI says

1.  No intention or circumstance can ever make a bad act good.
2. We can never do evil to create good.
3. The means never justify the ends.

Within the framework of ACI fall the principle of double effect:
Double effect refers to doing an action (which is not wrong in itself)  that directly yields a good effect, yet a bad effect also ensues, though the bad effect  is not deliberately intended and there is a weighty reason for allowing the bad effect.

Four conditions apply to double effect: 

1. the act must be morally indifferent (it cannot be evil in itself)
2. The indifferent act must directly produce a good effect
3. the motive of the indifferent act is desired for the good effect
4. The good to be attained must be at least equal to the possible evil which may result.

(example hospital procedure to remove cancer (neutral act) saves mother (desired good) baby dies (unintended negative effect).

To summarize, there are two ways of approaching human relations to use Martin Buber's terms:                 (l) I/thou   and  (2) I/it

(l) I/thous are those who treat others as thous, deserving of infinite respect, reflections of and creations of God, the God waiting for us in every encounter

(2) I/its: those who treat others as objects, using others, depersonalizing others. utilizy based rather than love based.

Criticism of ACI and its philosophical development is:

Alfred North Whitehead, Modes of Thought, Page 15, "The simple minded use of the notions 'right or wrong' is one of the chief obstacles to the progress of understanding."

Paul Tillich Systematic Theology Vol 1, p. 151: "The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law; it is absolute because it concerns everything concrete."

Prehistory 

Q. In a nutshell, what can be said about Primitives in terms of morality?
A. Chervin answers this question in Love of Wisdom:" The fact is clear: the more primitive the tribes, the more their religion exhibits a faith in one God, the father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, to whom his human creatures owe worship by prayer and sacrifice in order to express and sustain the moral way of life" (21). 

Chervin asserts it is a fact that no primitive tribe has been found to be atheistic: "Every human tribe and tongue and people and nation follow a religious way of life, with the widest variety of practices, including even human sacrifices."

The values of these primitives are handed down from one family/generation to another, as there were no schools. Chervin notes  that for true primitives, there is no  sign of divorce between their religion and their daily life.  In their daily life, meaning is found.   They believe in a Pure Spirit (not a bodily being) who is omniscient and all powerful; therefore, it makes logical sense to pray to him. They call him Father, because he is a spiritual reality and not a vague natural force or energy.   God made the world  and mankind is dependent on him. Part of the moral lifestyle is the sacrifice of the firstfruits.

The moral law comes from God - even in contemporary primitives in remote parts of the world. The supreme Being prescribes their way of life.  There is an objective morality rather than an individualistic, subjective morality.

4000 B.C.

4000 B. C., the time when writing was invented is the dividing line between the long prehistory when nothing was written and the 6,000 years of recorded history.

By 4,000 B.C.. the primitive religions had evolved into pantheism. Mankind was no longer practicing the simple religion of praising one  god as their creator. This is not to say that people were irreligious because religion did, in fact, dominate  in many city centers.  

Mankind had substituted idols, reflecting a pantheistic view of the universe for the primitive Supreme Being. This World Soul inhabited totems, amulets, carvings, and sacred groves. Chervin comments that although sacrifice was still offered, the act had been reduced to a perfunctory and scheduled ritual.

Because pantheism and idolatry reigned, a sense of moral, personal responsibility to a Human Being in each human act had dissipated  "appeasement" of man-made gods and cosmic spirits. Chervin writes, "Pantheism, the doctrine that God is everything and that everything in the visible cosmos is God, results in the liberation of each self to be his own god"(27).  What is lost ins this fall is "life in his presence, the life of prayer, recognized dependence, moral fidelity, sorrow for sin, purposes of amendment, gratitude for benefits received for existence itself, and all such aspects of theistic living" (27).   

What is the effect of this pantheism on morality?  Chervin and Kevane write," It represents an evasion of personal guilt, because in pantheism there is no teaching of a set of moral principles or guidelines coming from a personal Being beyond the cosmos.  there is no doctrine in pantheism that specifies how men should conduct themselves in each human act in view of the all-seeing eye of the personal transcendent Creator and judge.  This responsibility to God in each human act is evaded in pantheism , which becomes from this point of view a philosophical rationalization of the evasion.  Thus the fall from the Supreme Being is in a true and real sense a conversion to the self, which becomes the actual object of the worship. Each person is now free, in one particular way of defining freedom, in the sense of being free  to do what he pleases" (28).

I urge you to read all of Chervin's 528-page book, Love of Wisdom.
Let us now move on from the ethics of prehistory to the development of ethics in philosophy. Some of these lecture notes are based  on  the assigned texts, Sophie's World & Moral Philosophy.)

Q.  Who was the first philosopher - Socrates, Plato or Aristotle?

A.  Neither.  Keep in mind that philosophy is  a completely new way of thinking that evolved in Greece around 600 BC.  Until that time people had found answers in mythological religions.  

• Socrates 470-399 BC came first;  
• Plato      428-347 BC
• Aristotle 384-322 came later.

These three philosophers contributed timeless ethical insights which continue to guide us today.

Q.   Let's start with a question that's not a trick: What do you think the earliest philosophers were concerned with and why do you think they were called "The Natural Philosophers" (Pre-Socratics)?

A. They were called The Natural Philosophers because they were mainly concerned with the natural world and its processes.  They launched philosophy on its course. When they tried to explain the transformations observed in the natural, physical world, they were actually looking for the underlying laws of nature, as scientists do today. They wanted to understand what was happening around them without reverting to mythological explanations of thunder as being gods bowling in heaven.

These Natural Philosophers reasoned from the world picture common to mankind:

1. The cosmos is geocentric. Each is stationary & all  revolves around it.
2. The earth is flat.  Below the earth is the netherworld, and above the earth are the heavens.
3. The form of the universe is constant: It always  and always will be.  [Even those with cyclic views believed  that the earth would not significantly change again.]
4. They did not have a historical sense, since nothing had been written prior to 4,000 B.C.   Previous time had been short.
5. There was an eternity of matter. Matter exists eternally

Generally the Pre-Socratics looked upon the world as "besouled"  either by a World Spirit or by many indwelling spirits.  They philosophized in  their particular cultural context where there was an eternity of matter and a divinity  in the visible cosmos. Their basic question was "What is stuff made  of?"

We know very  little of the natural philosophers The little we know is found in Aristotle's writings. The problem is that much of Aristotle's work was lost/burned in a fire and that Aristotle generally referred only to the conclusions the natural philosophers reached.

So again, who is generally considered  the first  philosopher ?

Thales of Miletus 625 - 545 BC

• The first philosopher we know of
• From Miletus - a Greek colony in Asia Minor
• He measured the height of a pyramid by measuring its shadow at the precise moment when his own shadow was the length of his body
• Accurately predicted an eclipse in 585 BC
• He supposedly said, "All things are full of gods."  What this means is a mystery - he may have meant "life germs"
• The source of all things is water.
  • He probably noticed growth after floods in the Nile.

Anaximander of Miletus  610-547 BC

• The next philosopher
• From Miletus
• The world is only one of a myriad of worlds that evolves & dissolves into the boundless

Anaximenes  of Miletus (570-526 BC)

• A third philosopher from Miletus
• Water is condensed air
• Air is the origin of earth, water & fire

Above three Milesian philosophers believed in the existence of a single basic substance  as the source of all things

How could one substance change into something else?

We now have the problem of change. (pages 32 & 33)

Q.  After 500BC we  have a new group of Greek philosophers called Eleatics that were interested in the question of change. Why might they be called Eleatics?

A. Because they came from  the Greek colony of Elea in Southern Italy.

Q. What do you think Parmenides, the most important of these Eleatics  philosophers said about change?

Parmenides 540-480 B.C.

• Everything that exists had always existed
• All that existed was everlasting
• Nothing comes from nothing
• Nothing that exists can become nothing
• There is  no such thing as actual change; nothing could become other than  it was.
• Our senses give us an  incorrect picture of the world
• He used reason; therefore was a rationalist
• Rationalist: Human reason is the primary source of knowledge

Q.  A  contemporary of Parmenides is Heraclitus. He held the opposite view. What do you think that might be?

Heraclitus 540-480 B.C   "Character is fate."

• Constant change or flow is the most basic characteristic  of nature
• Heraclitus had more faith in what we perceive than Parmenides did
• We cannot step in the same river twice
  • Both the river and I have changed
• The world is an interplay of opposites
  • winter/spring, peace/war, hunger/fullness
  • Without opposites our knowledge would be limited & world would cease to exist
  • "God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, hunger and satiety."  
    • God was something that embraced the whole world & seen most clearly in transformations
    • Heraclitus believed in a "universal reason" guiding everything
    • "Universal Reason" or "Universal Law" is something common to us all   and something that everybody is guided by.
    • Yet most people live by their individual reason, thought Heraclitus.
    • "The opinions of most people are like the playthings of infants"
• In short, Heraclitus saw an Entity or oneness, a something which was the source of everything. he called this God or logos.
• Note: He was from Ephesus in Asia Minor.

Q.  How do Parmenides and Heraclitus differ?

Parmenides & Heraclitus

• Parmenides' reason made it clear that nothing could change.
  • our sense perceptions are unreliable
• Heraclitus' sense perceptions made it clear nature was in constant change

How was the dispute of change resolved?  Was it agreed that there is no real change and reason rules? Was it determined that there is change and senses  have primacy over reason? What compromise was reached to accommodate both points of view?

Empedocles  (490-430 BC)

• From Sicily - led the way out of the tangle
• The basic cause of disagreement was the belief in only one primal element: water
  • Water cannot turn into a fish
  • Pure water will continue to be pure water
  • So Parmenides was right
• Heraclitus was right in that we must trust the evidence of  our senses
  • We must believe what we see & that is nature changes
• Nature consists of four elements "roots," as he called them
  • Earth, Air, Fire, Water
• Nothing really changes as each element remains
  1. The four elements are just combined & separated, only to be combined again
  2. Analogous to an artist's palate: red can only paint red
     • Yellow, red blue & black can paint countless colors & paintings
  3. Fire Burning Analogy:
     1. We see wood burns: something disintegrates
     2. We hear crackle & sputter:   -that is water
     3. Something goes up in smoke - that is air
     4. We see the fire burn -   that is fire
     5. Something remains, the ashes - that is earth.
• So what is "Nature's Transformation?"  The combination and dissolution of the four roots.
• Now that the question of  change is answered (combination and dissolution), what question would come up if one looked further back into the process of change?
  • What causes elements to combine to form new life, to form flowers...?
  • Empedocles  believed in two opposite forces: love and strife. What would their roles be?
    • Love binds things together
    • Strife separates them
  • Empedocles distinguishes between substance and force.
  • Today scientists distinguish between elements and natural forces.
  • Scientists hold that all natural processes can be explained as the interaction between different elements and various natural forces.
• Empedocles raised another question - concerning sight. What might this question be and how was it answered in relation to four roots?
• Empedocles asked , "How can we see?"  "How can I see this red flower?"   
  • A.   Eyes consist of 4 roots. 
    • The earth in my eyes perceives that is of the earth in my surroundings.
    • The air in my eyes perceives what is of the air in my surroundings
    • The fire perceives what is of fire
    • Water perceives what is of water

Not everyone  agreed that there was one basic substance: water
Not everyone agreed that there were 4 basic substances: Earth air water fire

Some could not believe that the above elements could transform themselves into blood and bone.

What alternative explanation is Anaxagoras  devise?

Anaxagoras (500-428 BC)

• Nature is built up of an infinite number of minute particles, invisible to the eye.
• All can be divided into smaller parts
• Even in the minutest parts, there are fragments of all other things.
• "Seeds" are the miniscule particles which have something of everything in them

Q. How is this analogous to modern scientific theory?

A.  If I loosen a skin cell from my finger, the nucleus will contain not only the characteristics of my skin. The same cell will also reveal my eyes, my hair color, the number and type of my fingers.... Every cell of the human body carries a blueprint of the way al the other cells are constructed. So there is something of everything in every single cell. The whole exists in each tiny part.

Q.  What force makes things happen?

A. Empedocles contended  that love joines elements together

Anaxagoras imagined "order" as a kind of force, creating animals, humans, trees.... He called this force "mind" or "intelligence" (nous).

Q. Why was Anaxagoras convicted or Atheism?

A.  Anaxagoras said the sun was not a god., but a big red-hot stone. 
Although Anaxagoras was from Asia Minor, he moved to Athens  at age 40 & is the first philosopher we hear of in Athens. He was forced to leave Athens.

Q. Anaxagoras was also very interested in astronomy. What other observations might he have made - after studying meteorites?

A.  Heavenly bodies were made of the same substance as Earth.
There may be human life on other planets.
The moon had no light of its own. Its light comes from Earth. This explained eclipses.

Summary:
Parmenides refused to accept the idea of change
Empedocles  proved the world had to consist of more than one substance
Anaxagoras believed there was something of everything in "seed"

Democritus agreed with his predecessors that transformation in nature couldn't be due to the fact that something "changed." so he formulated a new theory, assuming eternity and immutability.If you're familiar with Lego toys, you will easily understand his theory. What could it be?

Democritis 460-370 B.C. 

"Happiness resides not in possessions and not in gold.
The feeling of happiness dwells in the soul." Democritus 420 B.C. 

• Last of the natural Great Philosophers
• From Abdera on the northern Aegean coast
• He assumed everything was built up of tiny invisible blocks, each of which was eternal and immutable.  
• Atoms is the name Democritus gave to these smallest units.
• a-tom means un-cuttable.
• The constituent parts that everything was composed of could not be infinitely divided into smaller ports.  If this were possible, they could not be used as block.  If atoms could be eternally broken down, then all would dissolve like constantly diluted soup
• Q.  Why would the blocks have to be eternal?
  • A. Because nothing can come from nothing (Parmenides & Eleatics)
• Q.  What would atoms be like?
  • They would have to be firm and solid. They could not all be the same.  if all atoms were identical there would be no explanation as to how they could combine to make red poppies and green olive trees, and black hair. Therefore, there would be an unlimited number and variety of atoms. Round, smooth, irregular, jagged.. they could easily join because of their diversity. 
• Q.  What are the three main characteristics of atoms according to Democritus?
  •  They were all eternal, immutable and indivisible (like god).
• Q what is the similarity between Lego blocks and  atoms:
  • The are indivisible, , of different shapes and sizes, solid,  and impermeable.  They have "hooks" and "barbs" so that they can be connected and later they can be disconnected & recombined
• Q. How are Democritis' ideas similar to those of modern science?
  • A.  Nature is built up of different atoms that join and separate again.
    • A hydrogen atom in a cell at the end of my nose was once part of an elephant's trunk
    • A carbon atom in my cardiac muscle was once in the tail of a dinosaur.
  • Although atoms can be divided into  protons and neutrons, physicists say there must be a limit .
• Summary thus far:
  • nothing can change
  • nothing can come from nothing
  • nothing can come out of nothing
  • nothing is ever lost
  • therefore nature must consist of infinitesimal blocks that can join and separate again.

• Q. Why is Democritus called a materialist?
  • He believed in nothing but material things
  • All that exists are atoms and the void.
  • There is no force or soul that intervenes in the natural process
  • There is no "conscious design" in the movement of atoms, though they follow the laws of nature.
  • All that happens has a natural cause, a cause that is inherent in the thing itself.
  • Democritus would rather discover a new cause than be the King of Persia
• Q.  How did Democritus explain sight?
  • Seeing something is due to the movement of atoms in space. When I see the moon it is because "moon atoms" penetrate my eye.
• What would Democritus say about the soul, seeing he was a materialist?
  • The soul is made of round, smooth, "soul atoms" when humans died, the soul atoms flew in all directions and could become part of a new soul formation. Therefore, humans did not have an immortal soul. the soul is connected with the brain and we cannot have any form of consciousnesses once the brain disintegrates.

Democritus' atom theory marked the end of Greek natural philosophy for the time being.

Democritus agreed with Heraclitus that everything in nature flowed, since forms can come and go.   But behind everything that flowed there were eternal and immutable things that did not flow & these Democritus called atoms.

Demise of Fate

As philosophers were seeking for natural causes, historians  began searching for logical causes.

Herodotus (484-424 ) and Thucydides (460 -400) did not accept vengeance of the gods as a reason for defeat in war. they sought other explanations.

Reasons other than divine intervention were sought for sickness and health. That sickness was due to supernatural causes hampered the development of medicine. even the vocabulary hampered research. For example, "influenza" means a malign influence from the stars.

Q. Who was the founder of Greek medicine?
A.  Hippocrates born around 460 B.C. on the island of Cos.

Q. What did Hippocrates recommends for a healthy life?
A.  Moderation and a healthy lifestyle.
      The root for everyone is through moderation, harmony, and a sound mind in a sound body

Q.  What does sickness indicate?
A.  That nature has gone astray because of a physical or mental imbalance.

Q.  How is Hippocrates related to contemporary medical ethics?

A. The Hippocratic Oath is often cited.  It reads as follows:

I will follow that system or regimen which according to my ability and judgment, I consider to be for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.  I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked nor suggest any such counsel and in like manner, I will not give to a woman the means to produce an abortion.  Whenever I go into a house, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain for every voluntary act of mischief and corruption, and further, from the seduction of females or males, whether freemen or slaves.  Whatever in connection with my professional practice, I see or hear which ought not to be spoken abroad, I will keep secret.  So long as I continue to carry out this oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men in all times, but should I violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot.

 Protagoras and Sophists 485-540 B.C. 

Satisfaction

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. J.S. Mill

Background:  After about 450 B.C.. Athens was the cultural center of the Greek world.  From this time on, philosophy took a new direction.

The focus was growing away from the concerns of the natural philosophers, that of nature and the physical world.

In Athens the focus is shifting to the individual and the individual's place in society.

Q. What is a quote what typifies the new role man is assuming?
A.  "Man is the measure of all things."  this was said by the sophist Protagoras (485 - 410 B. C. )

Q. What does this quote mean?
Whether a thing is right or wrong, good or bad must always be considered in relation to a person's needs.  Obviously Protagoras was not aware of the  Judeo Christian God and the ten commandments.

The Sophists created quite a stir in Athens  saying there were no absolute rights and wrongs.  Many Sophists had traveled extensively, and noticed cultures acted reacted differently in social situations, indicating that many habits are not natural or innate, but culturally taught (i.e. modesty).

Q. Protagoras was considered an agnostic. Why so?
A.  Because if he were asked if he believed in the Greek gods, he would say, "The question is complex and life is short.  I can't say categorically whether the gods or God exists."

Q.  What is one characteristic a sophist had in common with natural philosophers?
A.  They were critical of traditional mythology

Q. What is one reason Sophists sophists decided to focus on man?
A.  Because they realized that even if we can't know the answers to all of nature's riddles, we know that people have to learn to live together. Therefore, the Sophists decided to concern themselves with man and his place in society.

Q. Sophism is sometimes described as skepticism. why might this be?
Because they were not very optimistic about  man's knowing the truth  and answers to philosophical questions. they rejected fruitless philosophical speculation.

Aristotle

Aristotle was essentially at one with Socrates and Plato and apart from the sophists  by expressing an openness to the intelligible order or reality beyond that of the senses. The higher order of the intellect provides man with a deeper and higher knowledge

One person with a belief is equal to a force of ninety-
nine with only interests. -- John Stuart Mill

I am daily ever more convinced that theoretical work accomplishes more in the world than practical work.  Once the realm of ideas is revolutionized, actuality will not hold out.
George Hegel
    --Letters


I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.
Charles Darwin
    --The Origin of Species