Snowflake is a 2010s derogatoryslang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions. Common usages include the terms special snowflake, Generation Snowflake, and snowflake as a politicized insult.
Background and usage
It is popularly believed that every snowflake has a unique structure.
Most usages of "snowflake" make reference to the physical qualities of
snowflakes, such as their unique structure or fragility, while a
minority of usages make reference to the white color of snow.
Unique or special snowflake
Chuck Palahniuk has often been credited with coining the metaphorical use of snowflake in his 1996 novel Fight Club, which contains the quote: "you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake". The 1999 film adaptation also includes this line. In January 2017, Palahniuk directly claimed credit, adding that young adults of the 2010s exhibit "a kind of new Victorianism". Palahniuk's claim has been questioned. The metaphor has been used positively with students to celebrate their individuality (and teamwork).
Following Fight Club, the terms "special snowflake" and "special snowflake syndrome" were applied to individuals with a negative connotation.
Such terminology refers to a person who believes their status as a
unique individual means they are destined for great success, or deserve a
special career, with abundant praise and admiration. According to Merriam-Webster, in the 2000s snowflake referred "mostly to millennials
who were allegedly too convinced of their own status as special and
unique people to be able (or bothered) to handle the normal trials and
travails of regular adult life".
Generation Snowflake
The term "Generation Snowflake" or "Snowflake Generation" was popularized by Claire Fox's 2016 book I Find That Offensive!, which discussed a 2015 student/faculty confrontation at Yale University. The confrontation arose between university students and faculty Head of College, Nicholas A. Christakis. The confrontation, which was recorded and uploaded to YouTube, shows university students arguing with Christakis over a disagreement regarding Halloween costumes and the degree to which Yale University should intervene regarding student costumes which may be perceived as cultural appropriation.
Fox described the video as showing a: "screaming, almost hysterical mob
of students" and that the backlash to the viral video led to the
disparaging moniker "generation snowflake" for the students.
According to a 2016 article by Helen Rumbelow published in The Australian:
"The term 'generation snowflake' started in the United States. Parents
cherished their offspring as 'precious little snowflakes', each alike
but unique, or 'everyone is special'."
Claire Fox argues recent parenting philosophy led to parenting methods
which "denied resilience-building freedoms that past generations
enjoyed".
The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins English Dictionary's
2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as "the young adults
of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking
offence than previous generations".
The terms "generation snowflake" and "snowflake generation" are frequently used in reference to use of trigger warnings and safe spaces, or to describe young adults as anti-free speech, specifically in reference to a practice referred to as deplatforming. It has also been used to refer to a reported increase in mental health issues among young adults.
Politicized insult
Following the referendum result in favour of Brexit in the UK and the election of Donald Trump
as 45th President of the U.S., "generation snowflake" was often
shortened to simply "snowflake" and became a politicized insult. A
November 2016 article from The Guardian commented: "Until very recently, to call someone a snowflake would have involved the word 'generation'."
Snowflake as a politicized insult is typically used by those on the political right to insult those on the political left. In an article from the Los Angeles Times, Jessica Roy says the alt-right in the United States pejoratively describes most liberals and those protesting against Donald Trump as "snowflakes". A 2017 article from Think Progress
commented: "The insult expanded to encompass not just the young, but
liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers
to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended,
too in need of 'safe spaces, too fragile'". Jonathon Green, editor of Green's Dictionary of Slang, points out snowflake is an unusual insult in that it calls someone weak and fragile without using misogynistic or homophobic references.
Actor George Takei
extended the metaphor to emphasize the power of snowflakes, saying:
"The thing about 'snowflakes' is this: They are beautiful and unique,
but in large numbers become an unstoppable avalanche that will bury
you."
Others have returned the insult back at those with right-wing politics,
arguing "oversensitive whiners can be found all over the political
spectrum" including President Trump. Comedian Neal Brennan referred to Donald Trump as "the biggest snowflake in America", while a January 2017 opinion piece from The Guardian refers to President Trump as "Snowflake-in-Chief" and CNN commentator Van Jones called Trump "President Snowflake" based on his response to the FBI's Russia probe in May 2017.
Shelly Haslam-Ormerod, senior lecturer in mental health and wellbeing at Edge Hill University, strongly criticised the use of the term, arguing in The Conversation
that it stigmatises the mental health challenges faced by today's young
people in an uncertain world and noting that even children aged under
10 have been unfairly labelled "snowflakes" in tabloid articles.
In her syndicated column, Michelle Malkin criticized the provision of the Affordable Care Act
which requires employer-based health coverage to extend to an
employee's adult offspring up to 26 years of age, describing it as the
"slacker mandate" and calling these young adults "precious snowflakes".
Malkin argues the provision has "cultural consequences" in that it
"reduces the incentives for 20-somethings to grow up and seek
independent lives and livelihoods".
"Broflake" (from "bro" and "snowflake") is a related derogatory term which the Oxford Dictionaries
define as "a man who is readily upset or offended by progressive
attitudes that conflict with his more conventional or conservative
views". It has also been applied to women, in the more general sense of someone who claims to not be easily offended, yet often is.
Other uses
In the 1860s, "snowflake" was used by abolitionists in Missouri
to refer to those who opposed the abolition of slavery. The term
referred to the color of snow, referring to valuing white people over
black people. This usage was not believed to have extended beyond the
state of Missouri in the 1800s.
In the 1970s, according to Green's Dictionary of Slang,
snowflake has been used to describe "a white person or a black person
who was perceived as acting too much like a white person".
In March 2017, the American live sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live aired a skit about a Trump-loving dog that, through the aid of technology, was able to berate the anti-Trump humans in the room as "liberal snowflakes".
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:
Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.
Defining ethics
The English word "ethics" is derived from the Ancient Greek word ēthikós (ἠθικός), meaning "relating to one's character", which itself comes from the root word êthos (ἦθος) meaning "character, moral nature". This word was transferred into Latin as ethica and then into French as éthique, from which it was transferred into English.
Rushworth Kidder states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty'". Richard William Paul and Linda Elder
define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in
determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures". The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."
Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in
accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and
don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.
The word ethics in English refers to several things. It can refer to philosophical
ethics or moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason to
answer various kinds of ethical questions. As the English philosopher Bernard Williams
writes, attempting to explain moral philosophy: "What makes an inquiry a
philosophical one is reflective generality and a style of argument that
claims to be rationally persuasive." Williams describes the content of this area of inquiry as addressing the very broad question, "how one should live". Ethics can also refer to a common human ability to think about ethical problems that is not particular to philosophy. As bioethicist
Larry Churchill has written: "Ethics, understood as the capacity to
think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of
such values, is a generic human capacity." Ethics can also be used to describe a particular person's own idiosyncratic principles or habits. For example: "Joe has strange ethics."
Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophical ethics that asks how we
understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is
right and what is wrong.
An ethical question pertaining to a particular practical situation—such
as, "Should I eat this particular piece of chocolate cake?"—cannot be a
meta-ethical question (rather, this is an applied ethical question). A
meta-ethical question is abstract and relates to a wide range of more
specific practical questions. For example, "Is it ever possible to have
secure knowledge of what is right and wrong?" is a meta-ethical
question.
Meta-ethics has always accompanied philosophical ethics. For
example, Aristotle implies that less precise knowledge is possible in
ethics than in other spheres of inquiry, and he regards ethical
knowledge as depending upon habit and acculturation in a way that makes it distinctive from other kinds of knowledge. Meta-ethics is also important in G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica from 1903. In it he first wrote about what he called the naturalistic fallacy. Moore was seen to reject naturalism in ethics, in his Open Question Argument. This made thinkers look again at second order questions about ethics. Earlier, the Scottish philosopherDavid Hume had put forward a similar view on the difference between facts and values.
Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism;
this is quite akin to the thing called descriptive and non-descriptive.
Non-cognitivism is the view that when we judge something as morally
right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may, for example, be
only expressing our emotional feelings about these things. Cognitivism can then be seen as the claim that when we talk about right and wrong, we are talking about matters of fact.
The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing
things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuff referred to by
ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe
that ethics does not need a specific ontology
since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known as an
anti-realist position. Realists, on the other hand, must explain what
kind of entities, properties or states are relevant for ethics, how they
have value, and why they guide and motivate our actions.
Moral skepticism
Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism) is a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.
Moral skepticism divides into three subclasses: moral error theory (or moral nihilism), epistemological moral skepticism, and noncognitivism. All three of these theories share the same conclusions, which are:
(a) we are never justified in believing that moral claims
(claims of the form "state of affairs x is good," "action y is morally
obligatory," etc.) are true and, even more so
(b) we never know that any moral claim is true.
However, each method arrives at (a) and (b) by different routes.
Moral error theory holds that we do not know that any moral claim is true because
(i) all moral claims are false,
(ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false, and
(iii) since we are not justified in believing any claim we have
reason to deny, we are not justified in believing any moral claims.
Epistemological moral skepticism is a subclass of theory, the members of which include Pyrrhonian
moral skepticism and dogmatic moral skepticism. All members of
epistemological moral skepticism share two things: first, they
acknowledge that we are unjustified in believing any moral claim, and
second, they are agnostic on whether (i) is true (i.e. on whether all moral claims are false).
Pyrrhonian moral skepticism holds that the reason we are
unjustified in believing any moral claim is that it is irrational for us
to believe either that any moral claim is true or that any moral claim
is false. Thus, in addition to being agnostic on whether (i) is true,
Pyrrhonian moral skepticism denies (ii).
Dogmatic moral skepticism, on the other hand, affirms (ii) and cites (ii)'s truth as the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim.
Noncognitivism holds that we can never know that any moral claim is true because moral claims are incapable of being true or false (they are not truth-apt). Instead, moral claims are imperatives (e.g. "Don't steal babies!"), expressions of emotion (e.g. "stealing babies: Boo!"), or expressions of "pro-attitudes" ("I do not believe that babies should be stolen.")
Normative ethics
Normative
ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of ethics that
investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one
ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics
because normative ethics examines standards for the rightness and
wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral
language and the metaphysics of moral facts. Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical
investigation of people's moral beliefs. To put it another way,
descriptive ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion
of people believe that killing is always wrong, while normative ethics
is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief. Hence,
normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than
descriptive. However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view
called moral realism, moral facts are both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.
Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was
the study of what makes actions right and wrong. These theories offered
an overarching moral principle one could appeal to in resolving
difficult moral decisions.
At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more
complex and were no longer concerned solely with rightness and
wrongness, but were interested in many different kinds of moral status.
During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined
as meta-ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in
part caused by an intense linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.
Virtue
ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for
ethical behavior, and it is used to describe the ethics of Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers. Socrates (469–399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers
to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their
attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this
view, knowledge bearing on human life was placed highest, while all other knowledge was secondary. Self-knowledge
was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A
self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his
pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter
difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and
its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain
self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good if
they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the results of
ignorance. If a criminal was truly aware of the intellectual and
spiritual consequences of his or her actions, he or she would neither
commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows
what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates.
While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with joy. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.
Aristotle
(384–323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "virtuous".
In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with virtue this
person will do good and be content. Unhappiness and frustration are
caused by doing wrong, leading to failed goals and a poor life.
Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with virtue,
which is only attainable by the practice of the virtues in order to be
content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All
other things, such as civic life or wealth,
were only made worthwhile and of benefit when employed in the practice
of the virtues. The practice of the virtues is the surest path to
happiness.
Aristotle asserted that the soul of man had three natures:
body (physical/metabolism), animal (emotional/appetite), and rational
(mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise
and care; emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges; and
mental nature through human reason and developed potential. Rational
development was considered the most important, as essential to
philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness.
Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by
virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right
thing, in the right way, at the right time, for the right reason.
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or apatheia, was of the highest value;
self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace.
The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's
will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb
the mental equilibrium is, in essence, offering yourself in slavery. If a
person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your
internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material
attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not
be upset, but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if
someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity
because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death.
Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning
oneself to the existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is
not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead "return", for
they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a
person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be
avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for
the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the
health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be
avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity
and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence is highly desirable.
Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a
victory for which a man could be proud.
Contemporary virtue ethics
Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part as a response to G.E.M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist and deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground themselves in divine law.
As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that either
those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up
virtue ethics, which does not necessitate universal laws as agents
themselves are investigated for virtue or vice and held up to "universal
standards", or that those who wish to be utilitarian or
consequentialist ground their theories in religious conviction. Alasdair MacIntyre, who wrote the book After Virtue,
was a key contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics, although
some claim that MacIntyre supports a relativistic account of virtue
based on cultural norms, not objective standards. Martha Nussbaum,
a contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to MacIntyre's relativism,
among that of others, and responds to relativist objections to form an
objective account in her work "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian
Approach". However, Nussbaum's accusation of relativism appears to be a misreading. In Whose Justice, Whose Rationality?,
MacIntyre's ambition of taking a rational path beyond relativism was
quite clear when he stated "rival claims made by different traditions
[…] are to be evaluated […] without relativism" (p. 354) because indeed
"rational debate between and rational choice among rival traditions is
possible” (p. 352). Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century
blended the Eastern virtue ethics and the Western virtue ethics, with
some modifications to suit the 21st Century, and formed a part of
contemporary virtue ethics.
One major trend in contemporary virtue ethics is the Modern Stoicism movement.
Intuitive ethics
Ethical intuitionism (also called moral intuitionism) is a family of views in moral epistemology (and, on some definitions, metaphysics). At minimum, ethical intuitionism is the thesis that our intuitive awareness of value, or intuitive knowledge of evaluative facts, forms the foundation of our ethical knowledge.
The view is at its core a foundationalism
about moral knowledge: it is the view that some moral truths can be
known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them
from other truths one believes). Such an epistemological view implies
that there are moral beliefs with propositional contents; so it implies cognitivism. As such, ethical intuitionism is to be contrasted with coherentist approaches to moral epistemology, such as those that depend on reflective equilibrium.
Throughout the philosophical literature, the term "ethical
intuitionism" is frequently used with significant variation in its
sense. This article's focus on foundationalism reflects the core
commitments of contemporary self-identified ethical intuitionists.
Sufficiently broadly defined, ethical intuitionism can be taken to encompass cognitivist forms of moral sense theory. It is usually furthermore taken as essential to ethical intuitionism that there be self-evident or a priori moral knowledge; this counts against considering moral sense theory to be a species of intuitionism.
Objections to ethical intuitionism include whether or not there
are objective moral values- an assumption which the ethical system is
based upon- the question of why many disagree over ethics if they are
absolute, and whether Occam's razor cancels such a theory out entirely.
Hedonism
Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those
advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a
pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they
range from those advocating self-gratification
regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the
most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most
people.
Cyrenaic hedonism
Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics
supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be
merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged,
for fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no
concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit of
immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of
enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be
the only good.
Epicureanism
Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "...presented a sustained argument that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue." He rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings. Epicureans
observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative
consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and
some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better
life in the future. To Epicurus, the summum bonum, or greatest
good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive
indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For
example, eating one food too often makes a person lose a taste for it.
Eating too much food at once leads to discomfort and ill-health. Pain
and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain
and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source
of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead
to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there were an afterlife and
immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life
after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or
worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over
circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state of death in the
absence of an afterlife.
State consequentialism
State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism,
is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of an action based
on how much it contributes to the basic goods of a state. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
describes Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BC,
as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic
goods taken as constitutive of human welfare".
Unlike utilitarianism, which views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic
goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are ... order, material
wealth, and increase in population". During Mozi's
era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a
moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of
Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs
like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism
refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as
pointless and a threat to social stability.
StanfordsinologistDavid Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China,
writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic
wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and
wealth ... if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and
so on unproblematically."
The Mohists believed that morality is based on "promoting the benefit
of all under heaven and eliminating harm to all under heaven". In
contrast to Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian
because it is not hedonistic or individualistic. The importance of
outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of
individual pleasure and pain.
Consequentialism
Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold the consequences
of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about
that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism).
Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one
that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often
expressed as the aphorism"The ends justify the means".
The term "consequentialism" was coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick. Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory.
The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the
weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and
wrongness of actions.
In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule
generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline,
there is little else that can be unequivocally said about
consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many
consequentialist theories address:
What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the many types of
consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences
count as good states of affairs. According to utilitarianism,
a good action is one that results in an increase and positive effect,
and the best action is one that results in that effect for the greatest
number. Closely related is eudaimonic
consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which
may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the
ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism,
in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix
on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might
pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty
instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories
adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a
particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many,
conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to
be expected and must be adjudicated.
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues the proper course of
action is one that maximizes a positive effect, such as "happiness",
"welfare", or the ability to live according to personal preferences. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are influential proponents of this school of thought. In A Fragment on Government
Bentham says 'it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that
is the measure of right and wrong' and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he talks of 'the principle of utility' but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle".
Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist
moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that the morally correct
action is the one that produces the best outcome for all people
affected by the action. John Stuart Mill,
in his exposition of utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures,
meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly
valued than the pursuit of other pleasures. Other noteworthy proponents of utilitarianism are neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, and moral philosopher Peter Singer, author of, amongst other works, Practical Ethics.
The major division within utilitarianism is between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In act utilitarianism, the principle of utility applies directly to
each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is the one
that brings about the best results (or the least amount of bad results).
In rule utilitarianism, the principle of utility determines the
validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like
promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world
in which people break promises at will and a world in which promises
are binding. Right and wrong are the following or breaking of rules that
are sanctioned by their utilitarian value. A proposed "middle ground" between these two types is Two-level utilitarianism,
where rules are applied in ordinary circumstances, but with an
allowance to choose actions outside of such rules when unusual
situations call for it.
Deontology
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greekδέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill. This is in contrast to consequentialism,
in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the
act by itself. Under deontology, an act may be considered right even if
the act produces a bad consequence, if it follows the rule or moral law. According to the deontological view, people have a duty
to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts
("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule
(as in rule utilitarianism).
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (Pflicht).
Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that
make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out
the action.
Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act
purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be
both good in itself and good without qualification. Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good,
and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never
makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things
that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure,
fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification.
Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification,
because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems
to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only
one thing that is truly good:
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing
even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called
good without qualification except a good will.
Kant
then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used
to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could
arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause
harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an
action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good
will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'. People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because
they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in
itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer
chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of
"respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth
which thwarts my self-love".
Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end.
Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.
Kant argued that the only absolutely good
thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether
an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing
it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e.g. "I will lie", then their
action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it.
In his essay, On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, arguing against the position of
Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques,
Kant states that "Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally
untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional
condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their
definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius).
For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it
nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates
the very source of right [Rechtsquelle] ... All practical
principles of right must contain rigorous truth ... This is because such
exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone
they bear the name of principles."
Divine command theory
Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the
'divine command theory', which is actually a cluster of related theories
which essentially state that an action is right if God has decreed that
it is right. According to Ralph Cudworth, an English philosopher, William of Ockham, René Descartes, and eighteenth-century Calvinists all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.
The Divine Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to
it, 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. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so.
If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action
is not truly speaking "right", even though the actual physical action
performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbour's goods,
this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting
provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.
One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from
divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a
rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command
maintains that God makes the moral law universal.
Discourse ethics
Photograph of Jurgen Habermas, whose theory of discourse ethics was influenced by Kantian ethics
German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has proposed a theory of discourse ethics that he claims is a descendant of Kantian ethics.
He proposes that action should be based on communication between those
involved, in which their interests and intentions are discussed so they
can be understood by all. Rejecting any form of coercion or
manipulation, Habermas believes that agreement between the parties is
crucial for a moral decision to be reached. Like Kantian ethics, discourse ethics is a cognitive
ethical theory, in that it supposes that truth and falsity can be
attributed to ethical propositions. It also formulates a rule by which
ethical actions can be determined and proposes that ethical actions
should be universalisable, in a similar way to Kant's ethics.
Habermas argues that his ethical theory is an improvement on Kant's ethics. He rejects the dualistic framework of Kant's ethics. Kant distinguished between the phenomena world, which can be sensed and experienced by humans, and the noumena,
or spiritual world, which is inaccessible to humans. This dichotomy was
necessary for Kant because it could explain the autonomy of a human
agent: although a human is bound in the phenomenal world, their actions
are free in the intelligible world. For Habermas, morality arises from
discourse, which is made necessary by their rationality and needs,
rather than their freedom.
Pragmatic ethics
Associated with the pragmatists, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and especially John Dewey,
pragmatic ethics holds that moral correctness evolves similarly to
scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes. Thus,
we should prioritize social reform over attempts to account for
consequences, individual virtue or duty (although these may be
worthwhile attempts, if social reform is provided for).
Ethics of care
Care ethics contrasts with more well-known ethical models, such as
consequentialist theories (e.g. utilitarianism) and deontological
theories (e.g., Kantian ethics) in that it seeks to incorporate
traditionally feminized virtues and values that—proponents of care
ethics contend—are absent in such traditional models of ethics. These
values include the importance of empathetic relationships and
compassion.
Care-focused feminism is a branch of feminist thought, informed primarily by ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings.
This body of theory is critical of how caring is socially assigned to
women, and consequently devalued. They write, “Care-focused feminists
regard women’s capacity for care as a human strength,” that should be
taught to and expected of men as well as women. Noddings proposes that
ethical caring has the potential to be a more concrete evaluative model
of moral dilemma than an ethic of justice. Noddings’ care-focused feminism requires practical application of relational ethics, predicated on an ethic of care.
Role ethics
Role ethics is an ethical theory based on family roles. Unlike virtue ethics, role ethics is not individualistic. Morality is derived from a person's relationship with their community. Confucian ethics is an example of role ethics though this is not straightforwardly uncontested. Confucian roles center around the concept of filial piety or xiao, a respect for family members. According to Roger T. Ames
and Henry Rosemont, "Confucian normativity is defined by living one's
family roles to maximum effect." Morality is determined through a
person's fulfillment of a role, such as that of a parent or a child.
Confucian roles are not rational, and originate through the xin, or human emotions.
Anarchist ethics
Anarchist
ethics is an ethical theory based on the studies of anarchist thinkers.
The biggest contributor to the anarchist ethics is the Russian
zoologist, geographer, economist, and political activist Peter Kropotkin.
Starting from the premise that the goal of ethical philosophy
should be to help humans adapt and thrive in evolutionary terms,
Kropotkin's ethical framework uses biology and anthropology as a basis –
in order to scientifically establish what will best enable a given
social order to thrive biologically and socially – and advocates certain
behavioural practices to enhance humanity's capacity for freedom and
well-being, namely practices which emphasise solidarity, equality, and
justice.
Kropotkin argues that ethics itself is evolutionary, and is inherited as
a sort of a social instinct through cultural history, and by so, he
rejects any religious and transcendental explanation of morality. The
origin of ethical feeling in both animals and humans can be found, he
claims, in the natural fact of "sociality" (mutualistic symbiosis),
which humans can then combine with the instinct for justice (i.e.
equality) and then with the practice of reason to construct a
non-supernatural and anarchistic system of ethics. Kropotkin suggests that the principle of equality at the core of anarchism is the same as the Golden rule:
This
principle of treating others as one wishes to be treated oneself, what
is it but the very same principle as equality, the fundamental principle
of anarchism? And how can any one manage to believe himself an
anarchist unless he practices it? We do not wish to be ruled. And by
this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody?
We do not wish to be deceived, we wish always to be told nothing but
the truth. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves do
not wish to deceive anybody, that we promise to always tell the truth,
nothing but the truth, the whole truth? We do not wish to have the
fruits of our labor stolen from us. And by that very fact, do we not
declare that we respect the fruits of others' labor? By what right
indeed can we demand that we should be treated in one fashion, reserving
it to ourselves to treat others in a fashion entirely different? Our
sense of equality revolts at such an idea.
Postmodern ethics
The 20th century saw a remarkable expansion and evolution of critical theory, following on earlier Marxist Theory efforts to locate individuals within larger structural frameworks of ideology and action.
Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes
challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of
the notion of the 'individual' itself. This was on the basis that
personal identity was, in the most part, a social construction. As
critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida
argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and
sought to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "there
is no outside-text/non-text" ("il n'y a pas de hors-texte" is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside the text"); at the same time, Jean Baudrillard
theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and
eventually the absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer
world.
Post-structuralism and postmodernism
argue that ethics must study the complex and relational conditions of
actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is
not possible. There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be
taken into account or often even recognized. Such theorists find
narrative (or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy)
to be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is
always about particular lived experiences in all their complexity rather
than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate and individual
actions.
Zygmunt Bauman says postmodernity
is best described as modernity without illusion, the illusion being the
belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle.
Postmodernity can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of
humanity as unchangeable.
David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and Derrida's
meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the
"ethical turn" in Continental philosophy that occurred in the 1980s and
1990s. Hoy describes post-critique ethics as the "obligations that
present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither forced
on one or are enforceable" (2004, p. 103).
Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance.
Examples of this would be an individual's resistance to consumerism in a
retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or an individual's
resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas's account as
"not the attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of
the population to exert their political power; the ethical resistance is
instead the resistance of the powerless"(2004, p. 8).
Hoy concludes that
The ethical resistance of the
powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore
what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are
unenforceable precisely because of the other's lack of power. That
actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is
what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were
enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely
undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical. (2004, p. 184)
Applied ethics
Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply
ethical theory to real-life situations. The discipline has many
specialized fields, such as engineering ethics, bioethics, geoethics, public service ethics and business ethics.
A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make
better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice
myself for them if needed?" Without these questions, there is no clear
fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of
arbitration—in fact, no common assumptions of all participants—so the
ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. But
not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For
example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying
always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any
etiquette.
People, in general, are more comfortable with dichotomies (two
opposites). However, in ethics, the issues are most often multifaceted
and the best-proposed actions address many different areas concurrently.
In ethical decisions, the answer is almost never a "yes or no" or a
“right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall
condition is improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.
And it has not only been shown that people consider the character
of the moral agent (i.e. a principle implied in virtue ethics), the
deed of the action (i.e. a principle implied in deontology),
and the consequences of the action (i.e. a principle implied in
utilitarianism) when formulating moral judgments, but moreover that the
effect of each of these three components depends on the value of each
component.
Particular fields of application
Bioethics
Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values ("the ethics of the ordinary") that arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.
Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that
affect basic biology and future humans. These developments include cloning, gene therapy, human genetic engineering, astroethics and life in space,
and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA and
proteins, e.g. "three parent baby, where baby is born from genetically
modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a
female donor. Correspondingly, new bioethics also need to address life at its core. For example, biotic ethics value organic gene/protein life itself and seek to propagate it. With such life-centered principles, ethics may secure a cosmological future for life.
Business ethics
Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment, including fields like medical ethics.
Business ethics represents the practices that any individual or group
exhibits within an organization that can negatively or positively affect
the businesses core values. It applies to all aspects of business
conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire
organizations.
Business ethics has both normative
and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career
specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting
to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range
and quantity of business ethical issues reflect the interaction of
profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in
business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s,
both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today
most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values
under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters.
Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even
for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy
against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what
they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates
areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control.
The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and
sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the
development of formal ethics regimes.
Business ethics also relates to unethical activities of
interorganizational relationships, such as strategic alliances,
buyer-supplier relationships, or joint ventures. Such unethical practices include, for instance, opportunistic behaviors, contract violations, and deceitful practices.
Machine ethics
In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that issues in machine ethics
will likely drive advancement in understanding of human ethics by
forcing us to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a
platform for experimental investigation.
The effort to actually program a machine or artificial agent to behave
as though instilled with a sense of ethics requires new specificity in
our normative theories, especially regarding aspects customarily
considered common-sense. For example, machines, unlike humans, can
support a wide selection of learning algorithms,
and controversy has arisen over the relative ethical merits of these
options. This may reopen classic debates of normative ethics framed in
new (highly technical) terms.
Military ethics
Military ethics are concerned with questions regarding the
application of force and the ethos of the soldier and are often
understood as applied professional ethics. Just war theory
is generally seen to set the background terms of military ethics.
However individual countries and traditions have different fields of
attention.
Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others:
what, if any, should be the laws of war.
justification for the initiation of military force.
decisions about who may be targeted in warfare.
decisions on choice of weaponry, and what collateral effects such weaponry may have.
standards for handling military prisoners.
methods of dealing with violations of the laws of war.
Political ethics
Political ethics (also known as political morality or public ethics)
is the practice of making moral judgements about political action and
political agents.
Public sector ethics
Public sector ethics is a set of principles that guide public
officials in their service to their constituents, including their
decision-making on behalf of their constituents. Fundamental to the
concept of public sector ethics is the notion that decisions and actions
are based on what best serves the public's interests, as opposed to the
official's personal interests (including financial interests) or
self-serving political interests.
Publication ethics
Publication
ethics is the set of principles that guide the writing and publishing
process for all professional publications. To follow these principles,
authors must verify that the publication does not contain plagiarism or publication bias.
As a way to avoid misconduct in research these principles can also
apply to experiments that are referenced or analyzed in publications by
ensuring the data is recorded honestly and accurately.
Plagiarism is the failure to give credit to another author's work or ideas, when it is used in the publication. It is the obligation of the editor of the journal to ensure the article does not contain any plagiarism before it is published.
If a publication that has already been published is proven to contain
plagiarism, the editor of the journal can retract the article.
Publication bias occurs when the publication is one-sided or "prejudiced against results".
In best practice, an author should try to include information from all
parties involved, or affected by the topic. If an author is prejudiced
against certain results, than it can "lead to erroneous conclusions
being drawn".
Misconduct in research can occur when an experimenter falsifies results.
Falsely recorded information occurs when the researcher "fakes"
information or data, which was not used when conducting the actual
experiment.
By faking the data, the researcher can alter the results from the
experiment to better fit the hypothesis they originally predicted. When
conducting medical research, it is important to honor the healthcare
rights of a patient by protecting their anonymity in the publication.
Respect for autonomy is the principle that decision-making should
allow individuals to be autonomous; they should be able to make
decisions that apply to their own lives. This means that individuals
should have control of their lives.
Justice is the principle that decision-makers must focus on
actions that are fair to those affected. Ethical decisions need to be
consistent with the ethical theory. There are cases where the management
has made decisions that seem to be unfair to the employees,
shareholders, and other stakeholders (Solomon, 1992, pp49). Such
decisions are unethical.
Relational ethics
Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care.
They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and
autoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and
respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and
"...between researchers and the communities in which they live and
work." (Ellis, 2007, p. 4).
Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues
such as conducting research on intimate others that have died and
developing friendships with their participants. Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of contextual therapy.
Moral psychology is a field of study that began as an issue in philosophy and that is now properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development. However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology (and philosophy of mind). Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.
Evolutionary ethics
Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on
the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such
approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices.
Descriptive ethics
Descriptive ethics is on the less philosophical end of the spectrum
since it seeks to gather particular information about how people live
and draw general conclusions based on observed patterns. Abstract and
theoretical questions that are more clearly philosophical—such as, "Is
ethical knowledge possible?"—are not central to descriptive ethics.
Descriptive ethics offers a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science rather than a humanity. Its examination of ethics doesn't start with a preconceived theory but rather investigates observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration
as more fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of,
rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or of conduct. The
study of descriptive ethics may include examinations of the following:
Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics—and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.
Informal theories of etiquette that tend to be less rigorous and
more situational. Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics,
i.e., where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong?
One notable advocate of this view is Judith Martin ("Miss Manners"). According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social decisions.
Practices in arbitration and law,
e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right
versus right", i.e., putting priorities on two things that are both
right, but that must be traded off carefully in each situation.
Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who vote, buy, and decide what is worth valuing. This is a major concern of sociology, political science, and economics.
.jpg)
