Theories of Values & Ethics
by Gisella Danesi

In reviewing the various theories of values and ethics, it became clear that the world-view and beliefs one holds, have a direct bearing on the theory to which one subscribes. In turn, the theory to which one aligns oneself has a significant impact on the course of action one is likely to take when facing an ethical issue or dilemma. For example, Keating (1987, p. 299-300) takes the view that:

Only a person is capable of love, but any of the lower forms of animal life can experience pleasure as merely a sense reaction. A person is much more than a body, and any form of sexual activity which is impersonal, which uses the body alone for pleasure, violates the integrity of the person and thereby reduces him to the level of an irrational an irresponsible animal…Sexual immorality, more than any other causative factor, historically speaking, is the root cause of the demise of all great nations and all great peoples…[That is why obscenity] laws have existed historically in recognition of the need to protect the public morality…

If one were to hold the same worldview and beliefs as Keating, then one would no doubt also be supportive of the principle of legal moralism {an approach whereby one advocates that laws should be enacted to "control" the moral behaviour of people in society – a hybrid of deontological theory (Freeman 2000, p. 73) and natural law ethics (Freeman 2000, pp. 76-87)}.

Freeman (2000, pp. 29-144) outlines several different approaches to ethics, each informed by a different theoretical model, which in turn, is given credence by the existence of a sufficient number of supporters who hold similar worldviews/beliefs. In this section a brief review is made of different theoretical orientations to ethics with a view to developing an ethics framework (methodology) for addressing the case study.

Ethical Relativism (Freeman 2000, pp. 38-48). Moral relativism takes the stand that there are no absolute standards of morality – different standards exist for different cultures and societies. However, within a particular society, one should live according to its moral codes whilst respecting and tolerating the moral codes of other societies. An extreme view of ethical moralism even suggests that moral standards are a matter of personal preference and, ‘one should respect and tolerate the individual moral standards of all people (Freeman 2000, p. 27). It is difficult to imagine how an orderly society could exist if everyone held this extreme view. However, ethical relativism does have a potential positive side as well as possible negative consequences:

On the positive side, relativism encourages mutual respect and acceptance of differences, and may reduce tensions. respect should also not be confused with agreement. If one truly believes that moral opinions of others are as valid as one’s own, then one should have better tolerance for behaviours one disapproves. On the negative side, however, relativism can encourage avoidance and cowardice. "Well, let’s agree to disagree and avoid the issue – after all, it’s all relative." (Freeman 2000, p.48)

Consequentialism (Freeman 2000, pp. 49-65). As the name implies, the focus is on the results of actions rather than the intention. ‘The right thing to do…is whatever will maximize the good’ (Freeman 2000, p. 63). The positive side of consequentialism is that one knows what is right or wrong. The negative side is that there is little guidance for how to achieve the right or wrong outcome in specific cases. (Freeman 2000, p. 63)

Deontology (Freeman 2000, pp. 66-75). ‘The word deontological comes from the Greek root deon, meaning duty. In deontological theory, an action is justified by showing that it is right, not by showing that the consequences of the act are good.’ (Freeman 2000, p. 73) This approach focuses on the intention of the action, or the duty to act in a certain way, rather than on the consequences of the action. Unlike, relativism, this orientation comes from the belief that there is a universal set of principles that ought to be obeyed by all. These principles can be determined through rational thought. (Freeman 2000, p. 73)

Natural Law (Freeman 2000, pp. 76-87). The natural order of things has been determined for us by God. We can know the principles of this natural order through recognising our natural inclinations (i.e. by following our conscience). We can make moral judgments by means of the ‘interpretations and choice [which we can make] through utilization of our knowledge of intuitive natural law that God provides’ (Freeman 2000, p. 85). Like the deontological approach to ethics, the focus here is more on the intention of the act rather than on the outcome (Freeman 2000, p. 87):

…what is good or bad about an action is not merely the outcome, but what one intends as the consequence of the action. Being no slave to reason, whether an act is voluntary or involuntary is a critical factor in determining culpability, as are desire, intent and knowledge.

Virtue (Freeman 2000, pp. 88-97). The virtuous approach to ethics seeks to identify the ‘right action’ through a person asking, "What action will make me a better person both now and in the future?" (Freeman 2000, p. 89). Virtue ethics provides a useful bridge between principles and values (Freeman 2000, p. 98):

There are certain principles that provide good reasons for value judgements. Likewise, certain virtues can provide guidance in the application of principles to specific situations. Prudence also plays an important role in virtue ethics. The prudent individual knows the means or principles that guide one to certain good ends; this individual also knows how much particular ends are to be valued.

Whereas, ethics based on natural law has traditionally sourced the natural law (principles) from God, modern virtue ethics sources its principles in scientific study of human and social behaviour. In particular, evolutionary biology and neuro-science, are providing a fruitful source of principles (Ridley 1996; Freeman 1999):

…Utopia is impossible, because society is an uneasy compromise between individuals with conflicting ambitions, rather than something designed directly by natural selection itself.

None the less, the new ‘gene-tilitarian’ understanding of human instincts that [my book, The Origins of Virtue,] has explored leads to a few simple precepts for avoiding mistakes. Human beings have some instincts that foster the greater good and others that foster self-interest and anti-social behaviour. We must design a society that encourages the former and discourages the latter. (Ridley, 1996, p. 260)

Human Developmental Theories (Freeman 2000, pp. 100-113). Theories of human moral/ethical development hold that people develop an ever more complex understanding of the world around them, and the people in it, through a process of self-discovery. A key part of this developmental process is the resolving of conflicts within oneself and the resolving of conflicts with others (Freeman 2000, p. 100). Various models of ethical and moral development exist:

…all of which involve cognitive development and social experiences. Each model views development as a tiered or staged progression, with each stage possessing its own unique logical approach to problem solving. Each stage represents an increasingly adequate conception of fairness and justice. Interaction between the society and the individual leads to the establishment of values, beliefs, and attitudes that influence choice and behaviour. (Freeman 2000, p. 111)

Developmental models are more useful in understanding why people do what they do, rather than in guiding ethical decision making. They are, however, useful in the information gathering process in terms of defining the context in which the issue or dilemma is seated. They also give guidance when questions arise as to how much responsibility for ethical behaviour should be borne by the institution and how much by the individual (Freeman 2000, p. 113).

Feminist Ethics (Freeman 2000, pp. 114-126). In A Different Voice, Carol Gilligan (cited Freeman 2000, p. 124) exposed the fact that men and women think very differently about ethics and the related process of moral decision making: ‘Men think in terms of justice, women in terms of care’ (Freeman 2000, p. 124). The focus on caring as a moral imperative is the essence of feminist ethics. The world does not depend on us obeying its rules; however, the people we encounter do depend on us meeting with them from a caring space (Freeman 2000, p. 125).

Casuistry (Freeman 2000, pp. 127-141). This approach recognises that ethical dilemmas are seldom simple and often present conflicts involving moral obligations and duties:

The casuistic approach is a case-driven approach that seeks out the principles unique to each case, given the individual circumstances. The analysis of moral issues is guided by reasoning based on paradigms and analogies…Ethical principles originate within the concrete details of the case itself and are ferreted out throughout the method of paradigm case comparisons and analogy, which is the casuistic method. (Freeman 2000, p. 138)

The casuistic method involves five steps (Freeman 2000, p. 140):

1. Identification of the principles that apply to the ethical dilemma or issue.
2. Identification of a course of action.
3. Identification of other similar ethical dilemmas or issues that contain similar principles.
4. A comparison is made with the other similar cases.
5. Similar cases are sought in which the guiding principles justify the option in question.

This approach is similar to the legal system of most Western societies whereby the parties involved know what outcome they desire and what is likely to be achievable. The legal experts then seek to justify the chosen approach based on precedents set from similar previous cases.

Metaphysical Ethics. Metaphysics is defined as the, ‘Theoretical philosophy of being and knowing; philosophy of mind’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edition). Concerned with a decline in morals, and believing this to be due to people deserting religions in droves, some are advocating, that to counter the decline of society, ‘We need a theology which can continue without God’ (Murdoch1992, p. 511). To address this concern, they are turning to metaphysics. In fact Sprigge (1990, p. 247) sees it as almost untenable that people should not consider metaphysics when addressing ethical issues:

…there is something very odd in the dissociation of ethics from metaphysics. The difficulty in answering such questions as ‘How is it best that we, or how ought we, to act in the world?’, lies as much in deciding what we really are, what action really is, and what the world really is as in deciding what ought and best are. Even those last problems have a metaphysical dimension, but the first simply are metaphysical problems.

Conclusion

Clearly the approach one takes to values and ethics is steered by our beliefs and world-view. However, in today's society, very little attention is given to exploring the underlying reasons for the decisions made by people in power that affect our everyday lifestyle. They make these decisions based on their own (usually unquestioned) values and beliefs. The result is that competition is encouraged in lieu of cooperation. Economic efficiency is encouraged in lieu of increased employment, and so on. 

We will only have the capacity to build a society which provides us all with a meaningful life-style when we are prepared to put a significant effort into defining and living the values that are central to the creation of such a society. The defining of these values must start with an exploration of the source of our values, i.e. our beliefs and our world-view.

Blanchard, K. & Peale, N. 1988, The Power of Ethical Management (You Don’t Have to Cheat to Win), Heinemann Kingswood, London.

Freeman, S. 2000, Ethics: An introduction to philosophy & practice, Wadsworth – Thompson Learning, Australia.

Guidelines for Facilitating Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas in Professional Practice, http://www.engr.washington.edu/~uw-epp/Pepl/Ethics/ethics5.html, accessed 6 July, 2001.

Longstaff, S. 1994, ‘Why Codes Fail: And some thoughts on how to make them work’ in Ethics in the Public Sector, ed. N. Preston, Federation Press, Sydney.

Murdoch, I. 1992, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, Ghatto & Windus, London.

Nolan, J. 2001, ‘Teachers banned for misconduct’, in The Courier Mail, June 14, p. 9.

Ridley, M. 1996, The Origins of Virtue, Viking, London.

Sprigge, T. 1990, The Rational Foundations of Ethics, Routledge, London.

Tarvydas, V. 1998, ‘Ethical Decision-Making Processes’ in Ethical and Professional Issues in Counselling, eds. R. Cottone & V. Tarvydas, Prentice-Hall, New York, pp. 144-155.

Woodside, M. & McClam, T. 1998, An Introduction to Human Services, 3^rd edn, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Melbourne.

ValNet 2001, Values Survey of the Australian Workforce 1988-2000, http://www.minessence.net/valnet/, accessed 1 June, 2001.