History of Ethics

As ethics is the philosophical treatment of the moral order, its history does
not consist in narrating the views of morality entertained by different nations
at differnt times; this is properly the scope of the history of civilisation, and of
ethnology. The history of ethics is concerned solely with the various
philosophical systems which in the course of time have been elaborated with
reference to the moral order. Hence the opinions advanced by the wise men
of antiquity, such as Pythagoras (582-500 B.C.), Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.),
Confucius (558-479 B.C.), scarcely belong to the history of ethics; for, though
they proposed various moral truths and principles, they do so in a dogmatic
and didactic way, not in a philosophically systematic manner. Ethics properly
so-called is first met with among the Greeks, i.e. in the teaching of Socrates
(470- 399 B.C.).
Ethics of Ancient Greek Philosophy: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle

According to Socrates, the ultimate object of human activity is happiness, and

the necessary means to reach it, virtue. Since everybody necessarily seeks
happiness, no one is deliberately corrupt. All evil arises from ignorance, and
the virtues are one and all but so many kinds of prudence. Virtue can,
therefore, be imparted by instruction. The disciple of Socrates, Plato (427-347
B.C.) declares that the summum bonum consists in the perfect imitation of
God, the Absolute Good, an imitation which cannot be fully realised in this
life. Virtue enables man to order his conduct, as he properly should,
according to the dictates of reason, and acting thus he becomes like unto
God. But Plato differed from Socrates in that he did not consider virtue to
consist in wisdom alone, but in justice, temperance, and fortitude as well,
these constituting the proper harmony of man's activities. In a sense, the
State is man writ large, and its function its function is to train its citizens in
virtue. For his ideal State he proposed the community of goods and of wives
and the public education of children. Though Socrates and Plato had been to
the fore in this mighty work and had contributed much valuable material to
the upbuilding of ethics; nevertheless, Plato's illustroius disciple, Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.), must be considered the real founder of systematic ethics.
With characteristic keenness he solved, in his ethical and political writings,
most of the problems with which ethics concerns itself. Unlike Plato, who
began with ideas as the basis of his observation, Aristotle chose rather to
take the facts of experience as his starting-point; these he analysed
accurately, and sought to trace to their highest and ultimate causes. He set
out from the point that all men tend to happiness as the ultimate object of all
their endeavours, as the highest good, which is sought for its own sake, and
to which all other goods merely serve as means. This happiness cannot
consist in external goods, but only in the activity proper to human nature -
not indeed in such a lower activity of the vegetative and sensitive life as man
possesses in common with plants and brutes, but in the highest and most
perfect activity of his reason, which springs in turn from virtue. This activity,
however, has to be exercised in a perfect and enduring life. The highest
pleasure is naturally bound up with this activity, yet, to constitute perfect
happiness, external goods must also supply their share. True happiness,
though prepared for him by the gods as the object and reward of virtue, can
be attained only through a man's own individual exertion. With keen
penetration Aristotle therupon proceeds to investigate in turn each of the
intellectual and moral virtues, and his treatment of them must, even at the
present time, be regarded as in great part correct. The nature of the State
and of the family were, in the main, rightly explained by him. The only pity is
that his vision did not penetrate beyond this earthly life, and that he never
saw clearly the relations of man to God.

Ethics of Greek & Roman Philosophy: Hedonism, Epicurus, Cynics, Stoicism,

Skeptics

A more hedonistic (edone, "pleasure") turn in ethics begins with Democritus

(about 460-370 B.C.), who considers a perpetually joyous and cheerful
disposition as the highest good and happiness of man. The means thereto is
virtue, which makes us independent of external goods -- so far as that is
possible -- and which wisely discriminates between the pleasures to be
sought after and those that are to be shunned. Pure Sensualism or Hedonism
was first taught by Aristippus of Cyrene (435-354 B.C.), according to whom
the greatest possible pleasure, is the end and supreme good of human
endeavour. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) differs from Aristippus in holding that the
largest sum total possible of spiritual and sensual enjoyments, with the
greatest possible freedom from displeasure and pain, is man's highest good.
Virtue is the proper directive norm in the attainmemt of this end. The Cynics,
Antisthenes (444-369 B.C.) and Diogenes of Sinope (414-324 B.C.), taught the
direct contrary of Hedonism, namely that virtue alone suffices for happiness,
that pleasure is an evil, and that the truly wise man is above human laws.
This teaching soon degenerated into haughty arrogance and open contempt
for law and for the remainder of men (Cynicism). The Stoics, Zeno (336-264
B.C.) and his disciples, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and others, strove to refine
and perfect the views of Antisthenes. Virtue, in their opinion, consist in man's
living according to the dictates of his rational, and, as each one's individual
nature is but a part of the entire natural order, virtue is, therefore, the
harmonious agreement with the Divine Reason, which shapes the whole
course of nature. Whether they conceived this relation of God to the world in
a pantheistic or a theistic sense, is not altogether clear. Virtue is to be sought
for its own sake, and it suffices for man's happiness. All other things are
indifferent and are, as circumstances require, to be striven after or shunned.
The passions and affections are bad, and the wise man is independent of
them. Among the Roman Stoics were Seneca (4 B.C. -- A.D. 65), Epictetus
(born about A.D. 50), and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180). Cicero
(106-43 B.C.) elaborated no new philosophical system of his own, but chose
those particular views from the various systems of Grecian philosophy which
appeared best to him. He maintained that moral goodness, which is the
general object of all virtues, consists in what is becoming to man as a rational
being as distinct from the brute. Actions are often good or bad, just or unjust,
not because of human institutions or customs, but of their own intrinsic
nature. Above and beyond human laws, there is a natural law embracing all
nations and all times, the expression of the rational will of the Most High God,
from obedience to which no human authority can exempt us. Cicero gives an
exhaustive exposition of the cardinal virtues and the obligations connected
with them; he insists especially on devotion to the gods, without which
human society could not exist. Parallel with the above-mentioned Greek and
Roman ethical systems runs a sceptical tendency, which rejects eery natural
moral law, bases the whole moral order on custom or human arbitrariness,
and frees the wise man from subjection to the ordinary precepts of the moral
order. This tendency was furthered by the Sophists, against whom Socrates
and Plato arrayed themselves, and later on by Carnea, Theodore of Cyrene,
and others.

Ethics: History of Christian Morality

A new epoch in ethics begins with the dawn of Christianity. Ancient paganism
never had a clear and definite concept of the relation between God and the
world, of the unity of the human race, of the destiny of man, of the nature
and meaning of the moral law. Christianity first shed full light on these and
similar questions. As St. Paul teaches (Rom., ii, 24 sq.), God has written his
moral law in the hearts of all men, even of those outside the influence of
Christian Revelation; this law manifests itself in the conscience of every man
and is the norm according to which the whole human race will be judged on
the day of reckoning. In consequence of their perverse inclinations, this law
had to a great extent become obscured and distorted among the pagans;
Christianity, however, restored it to its prestine integrity. Thus, too, ethics
received its richest and most fruitful stimulus. Proper ethical methods were
now unfolded, and philosophy was in a position to follow up and develop
these methods by means supplied from its own store-house. This corse was
soon adopted in the early ages of the Church by the Fathers and
ecclesiastical writers, as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, but especially the illustrius Doctors of the Church,
Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, who, in the exposition and defence of
Christian truth, made use of the principles laid down by the pagan
philosophers. True, the Fathers had no occasion to treat moral questions from
a purely philosophical standpoint, and independently of Christin Revelation;
but in the explanation of Catholic doctrine their discussions naturally led to
philosophical investigations. This is particularly true of St Augustine, who
proceeded to thoroughly develop along philosophical lines and to establish
firmly most of the truths of Christian morality. The eternal law (lex aterna),
the original type and source of all temporal laws, the natural law, conscience,
the ultimate end of man, the cardinal virtues, sin, marriage, etc. were treated
by him in the clearest and most penetrating manner. Hardly a single portion
of ethics does he present to us but is enriched with his keen philosophical
commentaries. Late ecclesiastical writers followed in his footsteps.

Ethics: History of Middle Ages Ethical Philosophy

A sharper line of separation between philosophy and theology, and in

particular between ethics and moral theology, is first met with in the works of
the great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, especially of Albert the Great (1193-
1280), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Bonaventure (1221-1274), and Duns
Scotus (1274-1308). Philosophy and, by means of it, theology reaped
abundant fruit from the works of Aristotle, which had until then been a sealed
treasure to Western civilization, and had first been elucidated by the detailed
and profound commentaries of St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas
and pressed into the service of Christian philosophy. The same is particularly
true as regards ethics. St. Thomas, in his commentaries on the political and
ethical writings of the Stagirite, in his "Summa contra Gentiles" and his
"Quaestiones disputatae, treated with his wonted clearness and penetration
nearly the whole range of ethics in a purely philosophical manner, so that
even to the present day his words are an inexhaustible source whence ethics
draws its supply. On the foundations laid by him the Catholic philosophers
and theologians of succeeding ages have continued to build. It is true that in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, thanks especially to the influence of
theco-called Nominalists, a period of stagnation and decline set in, but the
sixteenth century is marked by a revival. Ethical questions, also, though
largely treated in connexion with theology, are again made the subject of
careful investigation. We mention as examples the great theologians Victoria,
Dominicus Soto, L. Molina, Suarez, Lessius, and De Lugo. Since the sixteenth
century special chairs of ethics (moral philosophy) have been erected in
many Catholic universities. The larger, purely philosophical works on ethics,
however do not appear until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as an
example of which we may instance the production of Ign. Schwarz,
"Instituitiones juris universalis naturae et gentium" (1743).

Ethics: History of Ethical Philosophy 1500 - 1700's

Far different from Catholic ethical methods were those adopted for the most
part by Protestants. With the rejection of the Church's teaching authority,
each individual became on principle his own supreme teacher and arbiter in
matters appertaining to faith and morals. True it is that the Reformers held
fast to Holy Writ as the infallible source of revelation, but as to what belongs
or does not belong to it, whether, and how far, it is inspired, and what is its
meaning -- all this was left to the final decision of the individual. The
inevitable result was that philosophy arrogantly threw to the winds all regard
for revealed truth, and in many cases became involved in the most pernicious
errors. Melanchthon, in his "Elementa philosophiae moralis", still clung to the
Aristotelean philosophy; so, too, did Hugo Grotius, in his work, "De jure belli
et pacis". But Cumberland and his follower, Samuel Pufendorf, moreover,
assumed, with Descartes, that the ultimate ground for every distinction
between good and evil lay in the free determination of God's will, a view
which renders the philosophical treatment of ethics fundamentally
impossible. Quite an influential factor in the development of ethics was
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He supposes that the human race originally
existed in existed in a rude condition (status naturae) in which every man
was free to act as he pleased, and possessed a right to all things, whence
arose a war of all against all. Lest destruction should be the result, it was
decided to abandon this condition of nature and to found a state in which, by
agreement, all were to be subject to one common will (one ruler). This
authority ordains, by the law of the State, what is to be considered by all as
good and as evil, and only then does there arise a distinction between good
and evil of universal binding force on all. The Pantheist Baruch Spinoza (1632-
1677) considers the instinct to self-preservation as the foundation of virtue.
Every being is endowed with the necessary impulse to assert itself, and, as
reason demands nothing contrary to nature, it requires each one to follow this
impulse and to stive after whatever is useful to him. And each individual
possesses power and virtue just in so far as he obeys this impulse. Freedom
of the will consists merely in the ability to follow unrestrainedly this natural
impulse. Shaftesbury (1671-1713) bases ethics on the affections or
inclinations of man. There are sympathetic, idiopathic, and unnatural
inclinations. The first of these regard the common good, the second the
private good of the agent, the third are opposed to the other two. To lead a
morally good life, war must be waged upon the unnatural impulses, while the
idiopathetic and sympathetic inclinations must be made to harmonize. This
harmony constitutes virtue. In the attainment of virtue the subjective guiding
principle of knowledge is the "moral sense", a sort of moral instinct. This
"moral sense" theory was further developed by Hutcheson (1694-1747);
meanwhile "common sense" was suggested by Thoms Reid (1710-1796) as
the highest norm of moral conduct. In France the materialistic philosophers of
the eighteenth century -- as Helvetius, de la Mettrie, Holbach, Condillac, and
others -- disseminated the teachings of Sensualism and Hedonism as
understood by Epicurus.

Ethics: History of Ethical Philosophy: Kant, John Stuart Mill, Altruism

A complete revolution in ethics was introduced by Immanuel Kant (1724-

1804). From the wreck of pure theoretical reason he turned for rescue to
practical reason, in which he found an absolute, universal, and categorical
moral law. This law is not to be conceived as an enactmnt of external
authority, for this would be heteromony, which is foreign to true morality; it is
rather the law of our own reason, which is, therefore, autonomous, that is, it
must be observed for its own sake, without regard to any pleasure or utility
arising therefrom. Only that will is morally good which obeys the moral law
under the influence of such a subjective principle or motive as can be willed
by the individual to become the universal law for all men. The followers of
Kant have selected now one now another doctrine from his ethics and
combined therewith various pantheistical systems. Fichte places man's
supreme good and destiny in absolute spontaniety and liberty;
Schleiermacher, in co-operating with the progressive civilization of mankind.
A similar view recurs substantially in the writings of Wilhelm Wundt and, to a
certain extent, in those of the pessimist, Edward von Hartmann, though the
latter regards culture and progress merely as means to the ultimate end,
which, according to him, consists in delivering the Absolute from the torment
of existence. The system of Cumberland, who maintained the common good
of mankind to be the end and criterion of moral conduct, was renewed on a
positive basis in the nineteenth century by Auguste Comte and has counted
many adherents, e.g., in England, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, Alexander
Bain; in Germany, G.T. Fechner, F.E. Beneke, F. Paulsen, and others. Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903) sought to effect a compromise between social
Utilitarianism (Altruism) and private Utilitarianism (Egoism) in accordance
with the theory of evolution. In his opinion, that conduct is good which serves
to augment life and pleasure withut any admixture of displeasure. In
consequence, however, of man's lack of adaptation to the conditions of life,
such absolute goodness of conduct is not as yet possible, and hence various
compromises must be made between Altruism and Egoism. With the progress
of evolution, however, this adaptability to existing conditions will become
more and more perfect, and consequently the benefits accruing to the
individual from his own conduct will be most useful to society at large. In
particular, sympathy (in joy) will enable us to take pleasure in altrusitic
actions.

Ethics: Evolutionary Philosophy, Socialism, Nietzsche

The great majority of non-Christian moral philosophers have followed the

path trodden by Spencer. Starting with the assumption that man, by a series
of transformations, was gradually evolved from the brute, and therefore
differs from it in degree only, they seek the first traces and beginnings of
moral ideas in the brute itself. Charles Darwin had done some preparatory
work along these lines, and Spencer did not hesitate to descant on brute-
ethics, on the pre-human justice, conscience, and self-control of brutes.
Present-day Evolutionists follow his view and attempt to show how animal
morality has in man continually become more perfect. With the aid of
analogies taken from ethnology, they relate how mankind originally wandered
over the face of the earth in semi-savage hordes, knew nothing of marriage
or the familt, and only by degrees reached a higher level of morality. These
are the merest creations of fancy. If man is nothing more than a highly
developed brute, he cannot possess a spiritual and immortal soul, and there
can no longer be question of the freedom of the will, of the future retribution
of good and evil, nor can man in consequence be hindered from ordering his
life as he pleases and regarding the weel-being of others only in so far as it
redounds to his own profit. As the Evolutionists, so too the Socialists favour
the theory of evolution from their ethical viewpoint; yet the latter do not base
their observations on scientific principles, but on social and economic
considerations. According to K. Marx, F. Engels, and other exponents of the
so-called "materialistic interpretation of history", all moral, religious, juridical
and philosophical concepts are but the reflex of the economical conditions of
society in the minds of men. Now these social relations are subject to
constant change; hence the ideas of morality, religion, etc. are also
continually changing. Every age, every people, and even each class in a
given people forms its moral and religious ideas in accordance with its own
peculiar economical situation. Hence, no universal code of morality exists
binding on all men at all times; the morality of the present day is not of
Divine origin, but the product of history, and will soon have to make room for
another system of morality. Allied to this materialistic historical interpretation,
though derived from other sources, is the system of Relativism, which
resognizes no absolute and unchangeable truths in regard to ethics or
anything else. Those who follow this opinion believe that nothing objectively
true can be known by us. Men differ from one another and are subject to
change, and with them the manner and means of viewing the world about
them also change. Moreover the judgments passed on matters religious and
moral depend essentially on the inclinations, interests, and character of the
person judgng, while these latter are constantly varying. Pragmatism differs
from Relativism inasmuch as that not only is to be considered true which is
proven by experience to be useful; and, since the same thing is not always
useful, unchangeable truth is impossible. According to Max Nordau, moral
precepts are nothing but "conventional lies"; according to Max Stirner, that
alone is good which serves my interests, whereas the common good, the love
for all men, etc. are but empty phantoms. Men of genius and superiority in
particular are coming more and more to be regarded as exempt from the
moral law. Nietzsche is the originator of a school whose doctrines are founded
on these principles. According to him, goodness was originaly identified with
nobility and gentility of rank. Whatever the man of rank and power did,
whatever inclinations he possessed were good. The down-trodden proletariat,
on the other hand were bad, i.e. lowly and ignoble, without any other
derogatory meaning being given to the word bad. It was only by a gradual
process that the oppressed multitude through hatred and envy evolved the
distinction between good and bad, in the moral sense, by denominating the
characteristics and conduct of those in power and rank as bad, and their own
behaviour as good. And thus arose the opposition between the morality of the
master and that of the slave. Those in power still continued to look upon their
own egoistic inclinations as noble and good, while the oppresed populace
lauded the "instincts of the common herd", i.e. all those qulaities necessary
and useful to its existence -- as patience, meekness, obedience and love of
one's neighbour. Weakness became goodness, cringing obsequiousness
became humility, subjection to hated oppressors was obedience, cowardice
meant patience. "All morality is one long and audacious deception." Hence,
the value attached to the prevailing concepts of morality must be entirely
rearranged. Intellectual superiority is above and beyond good and evil as
understood in the traditional sense. There is no higher moral order to which
men of such calibra are amenable. The end of society is not the common
good of its members; the intellectual aristocracy (the over-man) is its own
end; in its behalf the common herd, the "too many", must be reduced to
slavery and decimated. As it rests with each individual to decide who belongs
to this intellectual aristocracy, so each man is at liberty to emancipate
himself from the existing moral order. Editor: Haselhurst

Four Branches of Ethics

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive ethics deals with what people actually believe (or made to
believe) to be right or wrong, and accordingly holds up the human actions
acceptable or not acceptable or punishable under a custom or law.

However, customs and laws keep changing from time to time and from
society to society. The societies have structured their moral principles as per
changing time and have expected people to behave accordingly. Due to this,
descriptive ethics is also called comparative ethics because it compares the
ethics or past and present; ethics of one society and other. It also takes
inputs from other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and
history to explain the moral right or wrong.

Normative Ethics

Normative Ethics deals with “norms” or set of considerations how one should
act. Thus, it’s a study of “ethical action” and sets out the rightness or
wrongness of the actions. It is also called prescriptive ethics because it rests
on the principles which determine whether an action is right or wrong. The
Golden rule of normative ethics is “doing to other as we want them to do to
us“. Since we don’t want our neighbours to throw stones through our glass
window, then it will not be wise to first throw stone through a neighbour’s
window. Based on this reasoning, anything such as harassing, victimising,
abusing or assaulting someone is wrong. Normative ethics also provides
justification for punishing a person who disturbs social and moral order.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kant’s deontological ethics, Mill’s consequentialism

(Utilitarianism) and the Bhagwad Gita’s Nishkam Karmayoga are some of the
theories in Normative Ethics.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics focuses on one’s character and the virtues for determining or
evaluating ethical behaviour. Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas were major
advocates of Virtue ethics. Plato gave a scheme of four cardinal virtues viz.
prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude (courage). His disciple Aristotle
categorized the virtues as moral and intellectual. He identified some of the
moral virtues including “wisdom”.

Deontological ethics

Deontological ethics or duty ethics focuses on the rightness and wrongness of

the actions rather than the consequences of those actions. There are different
deontological theories such as categorical imperative, moral absolutism,
divine command theory etc.

First famous deontological theory is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative

or Kantianism. Kant said that the human beings occupy special place in
creation and there is an ultimate commandment from which all duties and
obligations derive. The moral rules, as per Kant, should follow two principles
viz. universality and principle of reciprocity. By universality, he meant that a
moral action must be possible to apply it to all people. By principle of
reciprocity, he meant said “do as you would be done by. Such premise of
morality is found in all religious systems, including Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc.

Second famous deontological theory is Moral absolutism. It believes that

there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged.
Against these standards, certain actions are right while others are wrong
regardless of the context of the act. For example, theft is wrong, regardless of
context in which theft was carried out. It ignores that sometimes wrong act is
done to reach out to right consequence.

Third deontological theory is Divine command theory. It says that an action is

right if God has decreed it to be right. As per this theory, the rightness of any
action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not
because of any good consequences arising from that action.

Consequentialism (Teleology)

Consequentialism or teleological ethics says that the morality of an action is

contingent with the outcome of that action. So, the morally right action would
produce good outcome while morally wrong action would produce bad
outcome. Based on the outcome, there are several theories such as
Utilitarianism {right action leads to most happiness of greatest number of
people}, Hedonism {anything that maximizes pleasure is right}, Egoism
{anything that maximizes the good for self is right}, Asceticism {abstinence
from egoistic pleasures to achieve spiritual goals is right action}, Altruism {to
live for others and not caring for self is right action}.

The core idea of consequentialism is that “the ends justify the means“. An
action that might not be right in the light of moral absolutism may be a right
action under teleology.

Meta Ethics

Meta Ethics or “analytical ethics” deals with the origin of the ethical concepts
themselves. It does not consider whether an action is good or bad, right or
wrong. Rather, it questions – what goodness or rightness or morality itself is?
It is basically a highly abstract way of thinking about ethics. The key theories
in meta-ethics include naturalism, non-naturalism, emotivism and
prescriptivism.

Naturalists and non-naturalists believe that moral language is cognitive and

can be known to be true or false. Emotivists deny that moral utterances are
cognitive, holding that they consist of emotional expressions of approval or
disapproval and that the nature of moral reasoning and justification must be
reinterpreted to take this essential characteristic of moral utterances into
account. Prescriptivists take a somewhat similar approach, arguing that moral
judgments are prescriptions or prohibitions of action, rather than statements
of fact about the world.

Applied Ethics

Applied ethics deals with the philosophical examination, from a moral

standpoint, of particular issues in private and public life which are matters of
moral judgment. This branch of ethics is most important for professionals in
different walks of life including doctors, teachers, administrators, rulers and
so on. There are six key domains of applied ethics viz. Decision ethics
{ethical decision making process}, Professional ethics {for good
professionalism}, Clinical Ethics {good clinical practices}, Business Ethics
{good business practices}, Organizational ethics {ethics within and among
organizations} and social ethics.

It deals with the rightness or wrongness of social, economical, cultural,

religious issues also. For example, euthanasia, child labour, abortion etc.