Series of lectures by Prof. Reza Gholami
4rd session – August 12, 2024
Fourth Section: The Role of Justice in the Philosophy of Ethics
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. In the third session, as an introduction, the role of justice in the philosophy of ethics was discussed. To begin, it is important to mention a few key points about the philosophy of ethics:
The philosophy of ethics is a branch of philosophy that focuses on examining concepts of “right” and “wrong,” or “good” and “bad,” in addition to the general and rational investigation of the nature and origin of ethics.
Ethics refers to the manifestation of both rightness or goodness in thought and action. Its fundamental topics, including the criteria for what is right and good, are studied in the philosophy of ethics.
The aim of the philosophy of ethics is to provide criteria for distinguishing right and good from wrong and bad through reasoned arguments.
Virtue refers to qualities that are right and good. Virtue represents the manifestation of righteousness and goodness, resulting in the individual and collective perfection of human beings. Virtues not only signify correctness and goodness but also possess the characteristic of perfection. For instance, justice is a perfecting virtue that the philosophy of ethics examines in detail.
After understanding and recognizing rightness and goodness from wrongness and badness, another aim of the philosophy of ethics is to investigate moral virtues and moral vices. In addition to examining the concept of each ethical virtue, the philosophy of ethics explores the processes of their formation and transformation.
Moreover, the philosophy of ethics rationally studies the relationships among moral virtues, treating them as part of an interconnected system.
If we consider ethics as a system, this system faces issues and challenges both within itself and in its interaction with the external world. The philosophy of ethics examines these issues and challenges in detail.
I would like to briefly explain the most important schools in the philosophy of ethics and mention how each one addresses the concept of justice:
- Kantian Duty-Based Ethics
Duty-based ethics, also known as deontological ethics, was proposed by Immanuel Kant and further supported by other philosophers. This ethical framework teaches that certain actions are right or wrong by their intrinsic nature, regardless of the consequences they produce. The morality of an action, according to Kant, is evaluated based on adherence to a set of rules or duties, not the outcome. In this doctrine, individuals are obliged to act in a way that could be willed as a universal law, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may result from their actions.
- Bentham’s Consequentialism
Jeremy Bentham’s theory of consequentialism, particularly his utilitarianism, is a significant concept in moral philosophy. Consequentialism is the view that the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences. Bentham’s utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness or pleasure and minimizing overall pain or suffering. In other words, consequentialism asserts that an action is morally right if it leads to a good outcome. This involves balancing good against evil across all available alternatives and comparing the consequences of different actions.
In some consequentialist theories, it is argued that the end justifies the means. Accepting this premise implies that there is no fixed moral foundation in human life. John Stuart Mill, another leading advocate of utilitarianism, expanded on Bentham’s ideas, emphasizing the quality of pleasures and the importance of individual rights. George Edward Moore, known for his work in moral theory, proposed a version of consequentialism focused on promoting intrinsic goods, such as beauty and knowledge. These philosophers have significantly influenced the development and understanding of consequentialist ethics.
- Virtue Ethics and MacIntyre
Virtue ethics has its roots in ancient Greece, where philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle developed the concept. They argued that morality is not based on rigid rules but rather on the cultivation of virtues and qualities within oneself, with an emphasis on character development and virtuous behavior. Socrates and the Stoics also contributed significantly to the development of virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics is an approach that places virtue and character at the forefront of ethical considerations. Unlike other ethical systems that focus on consequences, principles, or rules, virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of character traits that contribute to human flourishing. These virtues promote excellence and well-being in those who possess them.
In his influential work After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre argues that modern ethical theories fail to adequately explain the rational authority of moral norms. He critiques the superficiality and emptiness of common modern ethical philosophies, such as utilitarianism, and advocates for a return to virtue ethics rooted in traditional societies.
Let me raise some key points in the philosophy of ethics:
The Relationship between Ethics and Expediency
The relationship between ethics and expediency is a crucial topic. Expediency refers to actions taken for personal advantage, often in contrast to what is morally right. In everyday language, something is considered expedient if it benefits the doer, even if it isn’t necessarily the morally right thing to do.
In recent decades, there has been an effort to frame expediency as practical rationality or the pursuit of one’s own interests without considering moral obligations. For example, an action might be expedient for an individual’s self-interest but not aligned with ethical principles.
However, in John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, the term “expediency” takes on a different meaning. As mentioned earlier, utilitarians aim to maximize overall utility—the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. According to Mill, the expedient course of action is the one that maximizes utility, regardless of personal interests. Thus, utilitarians reject the common interpretation of expediency that prioritizes individual benefit over the greater good.
It’s important to note that consequentialists face opposition when discussing expediency. Critics argue that the focus on outcomes can lead to justifying morally questionable actions if they result in a perceived greater good.
From a perspective differing from the consequentialist argument, expediency generally involves the ability to make choices with moral insight. Expediency is acceptable as long as it remains within the bounds of morality. But could insisting on the inclusion of expediency within the realm of ethics lead to disastrous consequences?
Consider the following scenario: a criminal is searching for someone with the intent to kill. If the criminal asks us whether we have seen that person, should expediency or morality prevail? If we prioritize morality and refuse to lie under any circumstances, our truthfulness may indirectly contribute to the murder. In such a situation, most people would advise us to lie. The question then arises: does this lie fall outside the boundaries of ethics?
One possible way to address this challenge is to make expediency conditional. Conditioned expediency means that an expedient action is ethically acceptable when it closely aligns with moral principles. For instance, if we are faced with five options driven by expediency, we should choose the one that is most consistent with ethics.
Is individual expediency more important than social expediency? It seems that, according to some utilitarians and the doctrine of liberalism, individual expediency often takes precedence over social expediency, except in exceptional cases. However, those who prioritize justice cannot always accept the superiority of individual expediency over the common good.
In summary, the consequentialist school of ethics easily aligns expediency with morality, but many other ethicists disagree with this view. The issue of expediency in the philosophy of ethics remains unresolved, and if we consider justice as one of the most important moral virtues, it too encounters difficulties when confronted with the concept of expediency.
The discussion of expediency within moral consequentialism indeed leads us into a space reminiscent of Darwinian social theory. If we embrace the theory of Fetrat, particularly in ethics as previously discussed, we must decisively distance ourselves from the implications of social Darwinism. The Darwinian approach to ethics negates the existence of inherent moral nature in humans, suggesting instead that our moral inclinations are purely the result of evolutionary pressures aimed at species survival. This perspective undermines the concept of social justice, reducing it to a byproduct of survival mechanisms rather than a fundamental moral imperative.
- Relativism vs. Absolutism in Ethics
Turning to the debate between ethical relativism and absolutism, we observe that ethical consequentialism tends to push morality into a realm of extreme relativism. In contrast, Kant’s duty-based ethics and MacIntyre’s virtue ethics resist such relativism, maintaining that certain moral principles or virtues are universally applicable.
Moral Relativism posits that moral judgments are contingent upon specific cultural or historical contexts. According to this view, there is no singularly privileged moral standpoint. While this perspective encourages tolerance and a deeper understanding of diverse ethical viewpoints, it also presents significant challenges. One of the primary criticisms is that moral relativism can lead to a form of moral paralysis, where the inability to critique harmful practices across different cultures becomes problematic. Without universal moral standards, condemning practices such as slavery, inhumane punishments, or systemic racism becomes nearly impossible. This viewpoint could lead to the dangerous conclusion that universal moral laws do not exist, allowing for each ethnic or cultural group to justify their own interpretation of ethics.
On the other hand, Moral Absolutism asserts that certain ethical principles are universally valid, regardless of cultural or contextual differences. This standpoint provides a firm basis for critiquing and opposing practices that are universally harmful or unjust. However, it can also lead to dogmatism, where moral principles are applied rigidly without consideration of context or nuance.
- A Balanced Approach
Given these extremes, neither radical relativism nor strict absolutism appears entirely satisfactory. A more balanced approach, such as **moderate relativism**, may offer a realistic and practical solution. Moderate relativism acknowledges the influence of cultural and contextual factors on moral judgments while still upholding certain core ethical principles as universally valid. This approach allows for flexibility and tolerance without descending into moral anarchy, providing a framework in which justice and other moral virtues can be meaningfully upheld across diverse societies.
In summary, while ethical theories each offer valuable insights, the complexity of moral life requires a nuanced approach that can accommodate both universal principles and cultural diversity. This balance is essential for navigating the ethical challenges of our increasingly interconnected world.
Individual Ethics and Social Ethics
Some scholars argue that ethics is fundamentally an individual concern. They believe that while a person should act morally towards others, the concept of society as an objective entity does not exist, so we cannot expect a person to behave morally towards society as a whole. This perspective—denying the objectivity of society and the necessity of ethical behavior towards it—could potentially lead to unethical actions by organizations and governments against individuals.
Ethical responsibility is a complex and fascinating topic in the philosophy of ethics. What does it mean to be ethically responsible for our actions? Are humans created with free will, or are we creatures of determinism? If humans are free, do we retain free will within the social structures of life? If so, then we can accept ethical responsibility for our behavior. However, if social determinism imposes various constraints, what happens to ethical responsibility? Can individuals still be held accountable for their actions and be deserving of praise, blame, reward, or punishment based on their ethical obligations? The answer to this crucial question profoundly impacts our understanding of justice.
It seems more realistic to consider a middle ground here—neither absolute free will nor absolute determinism.
The Relationship between Social Contract and Ethics
John Rawls revitalized social contract theory in the 20th century with his work A Theory of Justice, basing his theory on the social contract. Rawls proposed that rational individuals, under a hypothetical “veil of ignorance,” would agree on principles for forming and governing society. He believed this was the most secure foundation for justice.
The key question is whether the principles derived from the social contract are ethical principles. While these principles might be ethical, neither Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, nor even Rawls rooted the social contract in ethics.
So, where is the problem? If we consider justice a moral virtue, its foundation must also be moral. We need the philosophy of ethics to explore various justifications for justice and to uncover the roots of ethical principles and theories.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the term “ethics” often refers to the domain of opinion, while “morality” pertains to the domain of action. However, these two terms are frequently used interchangeably.
Thank you for your attention.