For Values Quiz & Guidelines for Paper, Click Here =>: Go to Main Philosophy Page
Checklist for Your Paper, Click Here =>: Go to Checklist for Philosophy & Values Papers
VALUES FOR DUMMIES

1. Introduction

Do you have any moral values? Do you have a way of determining whether something is right or wrong? There is an easy way to determine whether something is right or wrong and to claim that you have moral values by using it to guide your conduct. The easy or, shall I say, amateur way to determine whether something is right or wrong. One way of doing that is to toss a coin and, if it comes out 'heads,' claim that what you or anyone is doing is right; or, if you prefer, claim that what you or anyone is doing is right if the coin comes up with tails on top! You may decide to use the number of stars in the stay or the number of taxis you see to determine whether something is right or wrong, or use anything else or nothing at all.

This is the easy or amateur way to determine whether an action is right or not. The difficulty is in defending or supporting this anything goes approach without appearing stupid, inconsistent, crazy or just a person without any moral values. If you like this approach, you need not read any further; because you have found it i.e. the way -- the way to doing the right thing. If, however, you are dissatisfied with this approach and would like to consider a more difficult, more professional or more philosophical approaching, think deeply about the following approaches and make a choice that you can defend, support and live with, after critically examine them.

2. The Professional Approach

The more difficult, professional and philosophical approaches to the study of moral values and determining whether something is right or wrong have been called ethics. Unfortunately those approaches tend to be formulated by philosophers who have spent much time and effort thinking about them and tend to give them big or long names. Philosophers tend to be difficult and obscure in their language and method. However, it is possible to summarize and simplify their ideas. I shall attempt to introduce you to ethics, or the professional or philosophical approach to values, by first explaining the various positions and then telling you what philosophers call them. Let us, first, try to understand the various ethical positions or theories and, then, worry about what to call them later.

Some people, particularly philosophers, try to determine whether an action is right or wrong by mainly, though not only, focusing on the long-term or short-term results, effects or consequences of the action in question. Most of these people think that happiness is good and, so, whether and action is right or wrong depends mainly on whether it produces happiness for the individual or society. Thus, whether the American President Clinton did the right thing in having 'sex' or an affair with someone other than his wife and lying about it will be determined by whether it made him and/or the society happy. If it did, it was right; if it didn't it was wrong.

The second professional, philosophical or ethical position rejects the position outlined above. The second position or approach to ethics claims that whether an action is right or wrong is not determined mainly by the result, outcome or consequence of the action in question. In other words, an action may make a person, the majority or even the whole society happy and, still, be wrong. How, then, do those who hold the 2nd position determine whether an action is right or wrong? Some have suggested that we use reason or reasoning. Other have suggested God's commands or wishes. Yet others have suggested using how one feels as the way to determine whether an action is right or wrong.

The first position which uses (mainly) consequences to determine whether an action is right has been called consequentialism or the consequential or, from the Greek words for 'end' and 'study,' teleological approach. The second position which does not think right actions are to be determined (mainly) by consequences is called nonconsequentialism or the consequential or, from the Greek words for 'duty' and study, deontological approach. Note that neither theory denies that people have moral duties or that actions have consequences. One merely claims that consequences are the first thing to consider in finding out whether something is right, the other merely claims that consequences are not the first thing to consider in finding out whether something is right. Both of them make it possible to consider other things apart from consequences. The difference lies in whether consequences are the main or primary determinant of rightness.

Further, we should note that there can be different versions of one position. Those who focus on the consequences, such as happiness, for oneself are consequentialist called ethical egoists, and those who focus on the consequences for the society or all concerned or the majority are called utilitarians whose theory is called utilitarianism. Note that being egocentric or egotistic, in the sense or excessively looking at yourself or talking about yourself is not the same as ethical egoism which evaluates moral conduct on the basis of self-interest.

The nonconsequentialists who, like Immanuel Kant, think the right thing to do is to treat people equally, with respect, are called Kantians. Those who prefer to use God's commandments are called divine command theories; and those who prefer feelings are called emotivists. Aristotle, on the other hand, who urged moderation and preferred to use rationality, character and happiness to determine rightness is difficult to classify as a consequentialist or nonconsequentialist! Like most consequentialists or teleologists, he focused on the end and thought that happiness was the highest good. Unlike most consequentialist or teleologists, however, he rejected pleasure and accepted rationality, as did Kant, as the means of determining whether one was doing the right thing! For Aristotle, we should be happy and act like rational beings not animals.

3. The Test

To find out whether you understand ethics or values, take the following quiz:

Values Quiz for Dummies

1. The claim that "people kill each other" is:
a) a values statement.
b) an ethical statement.
c) a statement of fact.
d) none of the above.

2. Those who claim that "people act in their own interest" are:
a) ethical egoists.
b) egocentric.
c) egotistical.
d) None of the above.

3. Those who believe that "there is nothing wrong with pursuing our own interest" are usually:
a) ethical egoists.
b) utilitarians.
c) Kantians.
d) none of the above.

4. Those who believe that "it is right to do whatever the majority wants" are usually:
a) ethical egoists.
b) utilitarians.
c) Kantians.
d) none of the above.

5. A consequentialist:
a) is any one who believes in consequences.
b) believes that only consequences determine whether something is right or wrong.
c) does not believe we have a duty to do anything.
d) is not the same as any of the above.

6. A nonconsequentialist:
a) is a person who thinks that actions have no consequences.
b) believes that consequences are never important.
c) believes that consequences are irrelevant.
d) is not the same as any of the above.

7. According to Immanuel Kant:
a) we should never use people as means to achieving our personal goals.
b) you should treat other people, but not yourself, as ends in themselves & not means to an end.
c) we should always act in accordance with universal laws of nature.
d) none of the above is recommended.

8. According to Aristotle:
a) everyone agrees about what happiness is.
b) good is what all things aim at.
c) to be happy is to seek pleasure.
d) none of the above is correct.

4. Application

1. How would you characterize the following ethical positions?
(a) "The cardinal ethical principle of philosophical consciencism is to treat each man as an end in himself and not merely as a means." (Kwame Nkrumah, Consciencism, 1970).

(b) "Moral principles have lost their distinctiveness. For modern man, absolute right and absolute wrong are a matter of what the majority is doing. Right and wrong are relative to likes and dislikes and the customs of a particular community. We have unconsciously applied Einstein's theory of relativity, which properly described the physical universe, to the moral and ethical realm." (Martin Luther King Jr., The Strength to Love, 1963).

(c) "It is nowhere written that "the good" exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men .... Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist ...." (Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, 1948)

(d) "By any means necessary."

(e) "The end justifies the means."

2. What kind of values do you think should guide the human services?

3. How should you determine whether what you, your colleagues or supervises are doing is wrong?

4. What approach or position does your professional code of ethics take?

5. Should you be held morally responsible for the recovery or lack of recovery of your client or patient?