Introduction
Ethics refers to those things that are firmly accepted ideas about what we should do in given situations (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer). For example, ethics might refer to a standard that says that stealing or murder or assault is not the right thing to do, and so it imposes restrictions on those activities. Ethics also includes virtues, such as honesty, compassion, and loyalty. The right to life, the right to privacy, and the right to be safe are also embedded in ethics, whether stated directly or not. What these things have in common is that the standards of behavior are well-founded and are supported by consistent reasons over time and across cultures (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer).
There are, however, different kinds of ethics that are different in the way they are perceived. For example, there is a branch of ethics called metaethics, which concerns itself with moral values and properties, or what morality is. Normative ethics refers to those ethics that tell us how we ought to behave, or what actions should be taken, irrespective of what a moral stance is or what its properties are (Holt), and applied ethics does tell us what those properties are, and describes overt behavior according to a certain moral stance.
This paper discusses the differences between normative ethics and applied ethics. The main difference, as will be seen, is that normative ethics is generally the content of one’s choices of behavior, and applied ethics is the actual behavior.
Normative Ethics vs Applied Ethics
As was stated, normative ethics refers to the content of moral behavior. One could state it in this way: normative ethical theories seek to provide action guides, or procedures for answering the question of “What should I do?” (Cavalier). Kant’s moral philosophy (Kant) is an example of normative ethics that seeks to provide a guideline for moral action (the Categorical Imperative). Contrast Kant’s theory of philosophy with that expressed in Camus’ The Stranger: ““I had been right, I was still right, I was always right. I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another. I had done this and I hadn't done that. I hadn't done this thing but I had done another. And so?” (Camus)
Fieser has listed several normative principles in applied ethics. It should be stated here that these ethical principles are deeply ingrained in us, so that they require no thought at all, but guide our behavior nonetheless. However, they are not always present in the same degree in each of us, as would be the principle of harm, for example. Many people harm others, up to and including killing them. In others, though, that principle is fairly rigid. Someone may very well kill someone else, but in my case, that principle of harm is exceptionally rigid, and so I avoid harming others even if such action brings harm to me. These are things like personal benefit, which means producing an action that has beneficial consequences, social benefit, benevolence, paternalism, the principle of harm, or not doing anything that will harm others, honesty, lawfulness, and autonomy (Feiser).
Applied ethics, on the other hand, considers such questions as “under what conditions is an abortion morally permissible?” or “what obligations, if any, do we have toward the world’s global poor?” In each of these cases, there is something specific about the question that is not present either in questions of metaethics or questions of normative ethics. These questions refer to applied problems, and so the necessary ethics for these problems is applied ethics (Dittmer). Dittmer, too, makes the point that we must be able to show that morality exists, that moral judgments reflect some truth, in order for applied ethics to be relevant. Gowdy offers an example of a problem in applied ethics. There was once a CEO of a large corporation who had a reputation for his high moral standards.. A possibility arose for his company to open a new branch in a foreign country with the resulting expectation that the company would earn about $100 million per year. There were four ethical problems with this: (1) that country’s local officials were unaccustomed to accepting bribes for permits, (2) the CEO’s company would be required to sign a waiver stating that no bribes had taken place, (3) middlemen would have to do the bribing so that the company could pretend to not know that bribes were taking place, and (4) if the new branch did not open, the CEO might lose his job (Gowdy).
Now in this scenario, there is not really an ‘ethical’ problem. What had to be decided was whether the acquisition of that much money outweighed the risk of jail, and more importantly, whether the desire for money was more important than a person’s honor and respected word. Gowdy relates what he calls “preestablished weights of chosen standards” and this is true for every person (Gowdy). It is what I was saying earlier – – the normative ethics I have, and that many people have are deeply embedded so that all of my decision-making from an ethical point of view is fairly easy. But each person has varying degrees of normative ethics, and so someone would accept the money as bribes, while many would not.
Kant’s Moral Philosophy
The aim of Kant’s moral philosophy was to establish a groundwork for moral decision-making. His point was to come up with a precise statement of whatever principles would show how ordinary moral judgments are based upon. In these, he was fairly rigid. His most famous doctrine was the doctrine of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative, as opposed to hypothetical imperatives, is a single truth that is true for everyone, and for which there are no exceptions. This is the view that most people take with regard to their ethical functioning. They would suppose that their choices are driven by categorical imperatives – – e.g. it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to steal, it is wrong, in the scenario above, to pursue money over ethics, regardless of the sum – – and that, as far as it goes, is that (Johnson).
Kant calls it imperative because it is not conditional, and not negotiable. It has nothing to do with actions at all (though one’s actions are the result), but about will and intention. We need not agree with categorical imperatives, but it doesn’t matter if we do agree. Categorical imperatives operate independently of our agendas, ends we may have, or adopted goals. As Kant said, “A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any other purpose. Thus, one’s morals and ethics are always straight, always congruent, always the same, and as a result, our behaviors will always be “right” and moral and ethical (Johnson).
My Own Views
For myself, I tend to fall nearer to, on a continuum of ethical views, an ethical theory like Kant’s than I do to an ethical theory like utilitarianism, promulgated by Jeremy Bentham and others. Some situations, though, are quite complex, and in these modern times, especially, some situations arise that were not heard of in Kant’s day. How we would make decisions about abortion, or world hunger, or the cost of space exploration, for example, these things were not questions in Kant’s time. And they rarely are as simple as people make them out to be, as if one moral philosophy fits all.
Still, there are lots of ordinary decisions they need to be made frequently, and these must be couched against a standard of behavior that is consistent, honest, honorable, and right, according to the majority of sane people in any population. So, if a situation arises in which I am facing the killing of someone, my own personal abhorrence of killing would prevent me from doing it. Now I know that some people would present to me some compelling arguments for it, such as “well what if that person was going to kill your children if you didn’t kill him first?” That may change things for me, but since I haven’t faced that choice, I haven’t had to make it. The same thing is true for transgenders using the bathroom that they choose to use, rather than having that decided by law. My underlying philosophy is rights should be respected always, whether they are agreed with or not. I also adhere to the idea that people should be safe and free from harm. I know there are people who disagree, but those are “categorical imperatives” (indispensible) for me.
Conclusion
Discussing ethics, thinking about ethics, applying ethics – – none of these things is easy. We grow up with some ethical frameworks already in place, but those ethical frameworks don’t properly belong to us. They are parent’s ethical frameworks, and our teacher’s ethical frameworks. As we grow and mature, we learn to either accept those more fully, but more mindfully, or we abandon those principles for others that suit us better. No one is free from ethics in their lifetime, although it may seem so, judging by the behavior of some adults we observe. And the unfortunate thing is that some people act with behaviors that don’t seem moral or ethical at all. Money, as in the scenario above, is one reason. It even seems now, in our political culture, that our ethical actions are dictated entirely by money, and not by any sense of ethical thought.
Works Cited
Camus, Albert. The Stranger, tr. Matthew Ward. New York: Vintage. Print.
Cavalier, Robert. Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics. Carnegie-Mellon University. 2002. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016.
Dittmer, Joel. “Applied Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Missouri University of Science and Technology. N.d. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016.
Fieser, James. “Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of Tennessee at Martin. N.d. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016.
Gowdy, Larry Neal. “Applied Ethics.” Ethicsmorals.com. 2013. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016.
Holt, Tim. “Normative Ethics.” Moral Philosophy. 2009. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016
Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. 2008. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A German-English Edition, ed. and tr. Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann. 2011. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print.
Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. “What is Ethics?” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Aug. 18, 2015. Web. Accessed May 20, 2016.
