Ethics

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of

philosophy that involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts
of right and wrong conduct.[1] The field of
ethics, along with aesthetics, concern
matters of value, and thus comprise the
branch of philosophy called axiology.[2]

Ethics seeks to resolve questions of

human morality by defining concepts
such as good and evil, right and wrong,
virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a
field of intellectual inquiry, moral
philosophy also is related to the fields of
moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and
value theory.

Three major areas of study within ethics

recognized today are:[1]

1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical

meaning and reference of moral
propositions, and how their truth values
(if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the
practical means of determining a moral
course of action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a
person is obligated (or permitted) to do
in a specific situation or a particular
domain of action[1]

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".[3] This was borrowed into Latin
as ethica and then into French as éthique,
from which it was borrowed 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' ".[4] 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".[5] 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."[6] 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.[7]
The word ethics in English refers to
several things.[8] 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."[9] Williams describes the
content of this area of inquiry as
addressing the very broad question, "how
one should live".[10] 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."[11] Ethics can
also be used to describe a particular
person's own idiosyncratic principles or
habits.[12] 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.[13] 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 philosopher David 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.[14]
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.[15]

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.[13] 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.[16]

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

Socrates
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.[17]:32–33

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.

Stoicism
Epictetus

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.[17]:38–41

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.[18] 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.[18] 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".[19] 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[20] 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.[20]

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.[21]

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.[21][22]

Sufficiently broadly defined, ethical

intuitionism can be taken to encompass
cognitivist forms of moral sense
theory.[23] 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. (see the Rational
intuition versus moral sense section of
this article for further discussion).

Ethical intuitionism was first clearly

shown in use by the philosopher Francis
Hutcheson. Later ethical intuitionists of
influence and note include Henry
Sidgwick, G.E. Moore, Harold Arthur
Prichard, C.S. Lewis and, most
influentially, Robert Audi.

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.[17]:37

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.[17]:37

Epicureanism

Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of

virtue ethics. Epicurus "...presented a
sustained argument that pleasure,
correctly understood, will coincide with
virtue."[24] 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.[17]:37–38

State consequentialism

State consequentialism, also known as

Mohist consequentialism,[25] 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.[25] 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".[26] Unlike utilitarianism,
which views pleasure as a moral good,
"the basic goods in Mohist
consequentialist thinking are ... order,
material wealth, and increase in
population".[27] 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.[28]

Stanford sinologist David 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."[27] 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.[29]

Consequentialism/teleology

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.[30] 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.[31] 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.[32]
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".[33][34]

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.[35] 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.[36] 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

Immanuel Kant

Deontological ethics or deontology (from

Greek δέον, 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.[37] 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,[38] 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.[39][40] First, Kant argues
that to act in the morally right way,
people must act from duty (deon).[41]
Second, Kant argued that it was not the
consequences of actions that make
them right or wrong but the motives
(expressed as maxims) of the person
who carries out the action. Kant's
argument that to act in the morally right
way, one must act from duty, begins with
an argument that the highest good must
be both good in itself, and good without
qualification.[42] 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 to not be good without
qualification, because when people take
pleasure in watching someone suffer,
they 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.[42]

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).[43]

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.[44] 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.[45]
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.[46]
Habermas argues that his ethical theory
is an improvement on Kant's ethics.[46]
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.[47]
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.[48] 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.[49] Noddings’ care-
focused feminism requires practical
application of relational ethics,
predicated on an ethic of care.[50]
Role ethics

Role ethics is an ethical theory based on

family roles.[51] Unlike virtue ethics, role
ethics is not individualistic. Morality is
derived from a person's relationship with
their community.[52] Confucian ethics is
an example of role ethics[51] though this
is not straightforwardly uncontested.[53]
Confucian roles center around the
concept of filial piety or xiao, a respect
for family members.[54] 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.[52]

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.[55] 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.[56]

Postmodern ethics
 This article or section possibly contains
synthesis of material which does not verifiably
Learn more

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, at least in 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.

Specific questions
Applied ethics is used in some aspects
of determining public policy, as well as by
individuals facing difficult decisions. The
sort of questions addressed by applied
ethics include: "Is getting an abortion
immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is
affirmative action right or wrong?" "What
are human rights, and how do we
determine them?" "Do animals have
rights as well?" and "Do individuals have
the right of self-determination?"[13]

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",
"right or wrong" statement. Many buttons
are pushed so that the overall condition
is improved and not to the benefit of any
particular faction.

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,[57] 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.[58]
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.[59]
With such life-centered principles, ethics
may secure a cosmological future for
life.[60]

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."[61]
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.[62] The emergence
of large corporations with limited
relationships and sensitivity to the
communities in which they operate
accelerated the development of formal
ethics regimes.[63][64]

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.[65] 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.[66] Just war theory is generally
seen to set the background terms of
military ethics. However individual
countries and traditions have different
fields of attention.[67]

Military ethics involves multiple

subareas, including the following among
others:
1. what, if any, should be the laws of war.
2. justification for the initiation of military
force.
3. decisions about who may be targeted
in warfare.
4. decisions on choice of weaponry, and
what collateral effects such weaponry
may have.
5. standards for handling military
prisoners.
6. 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.[68]

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.[69]
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.[70]
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.[71]

Plagiarism is the failure to give credit to

another author’s work or ideas, when it is
used in the publication.[72] It is the
obligation of the editor of the journal to
ensure the article does not contain any
plagiarism before it is published.[73] If a
publication that has already been
published is proven to contain
plagiarism, the editor of the journal can
retract the article.[74]

Publication bias occurs when the

publication is one-sided or "prejudiced
against results".[75] 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".[76]

Misconduct in research can occur when

an experimenter falsifies results.[77]
Falsely recorded information occurs
when the researcher "fakes" information
or data, which was not used when
conducting the actual experiment.[77] 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.[70]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.[78]:62–63 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).[79] Relational
ethics also help researchers understand
difficult issues such as conducting
research on intimate others that have
died and developing friendships with
their participants.[80][81] Relational ethics
in close personal relationships form a
central concept of contextual therapy.
Animal ethics

Animal ethics is a term used in academia

to describe human-animal relationships
and how animals ought to be treated.
The subject matter includes animal
rights, animal welfare, animal law,
speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife
conservation, the moral status of
nonhuman animals, the concept of
nonhuman personhood, human
exceptionalism, the history of animal use,
and theories of justice.

Moral psychology
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.[82] However, others tend to
use the term more broadly to include any
topics at the intersection of ethics and
psychology (and philosophy of mind).[83]
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.[84]

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.[85]

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.[86]

See also
Contemporary ethics
Corporate social responsibility
Declaration of Geneva
Declaration of Helsinki
Deductive reasoning
Dharma
Environmental ethics
Ethical movement
Ethics in religion
Ethics paper
Humanism
Index of ethics articles—alphabetical
list of ethics-related articles
Neuroethics
Outline of ethics—list of ethics-related
articles, arranged by sub-topic
Practical philosophy
Science of morality
Secular ethics
Sexual ethics
 Theory of justification

Notes
1. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Ethics"
2. Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
Entry on Axiology.
3. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.
1889.
4. Kidder, Rushworth (2003). How Good
People Make Tough Choices: Resolving
the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York:
Harper Collins. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-688-
17590-0.
5. Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The
Miniature Guide to Understanding the
Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United
States: Foundation for Critical Thinking
Free Press. p. NP. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-
3.
6. John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,
1995.
7. Paul, Richard; Elder, Linda (2006). The
Miniature Guide to Understanding the
Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United
States: Foundation for Critical Thinking
Free Press. p. np. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-
3.
8. "Definition of ethic by Merriam
Webster" . Merriam Webster. Retrieved
October 4, 2015.
9. Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits
of Philosophy. p. 2.
10. Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the
Limits of Philosophy. p. 1.
11. "Are We Professionals? A Critical Look
at the Social Role of Bioethicists".
Daedalus. 1999. pp. 253–274.
12. David Tanguay (January 24, 2014).
"Buddha and Socrates share Common
ground" . Soul of Wit. Archived from the
original on July 22, 2014. Retrieved
July 22, 2014.
13. "What is ethics?" . BBC. Archived from
the original on October 28, 2013.
Retrieved July 22, 2014.
14. http://www.iep.utm.edu/non-cogn/
15. Miller, C (2009). "The Conditions of
Moral Realism". The Journal of
Philosophical Research. 34: 123–155.
doi:10.5840/jpr_2009_5 .
16. Cavalier, Robert. "Meta-ethics,
Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics" .
Online Guide to Ethics and Moral
Philosophy. Archived from the original on
November 12, 2013. Retrieved
February 26, 2014.
17. William S. Sahakian; Mabel Lewis
Sahakian (1966). Ideas of the Great
Philosophers. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 978-
1-56619-271-2.
18. Professor Michiel S.S. De De Vries;
Professor Pan Suk Kim (2011). Value and
Virtue in Public Administration: A
Comparative Perspective. Palgrave
Macmillan. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-230-35709-
9.
19. Nussbaum, Martha (1987). Non-
Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian
Approach.
20. John Newton, Ph.D., Complete
Conduct Principles for the 21st Century
(2000). ISBN 0-9673705-7-4.
21. Shafer-Landau & Cuneo (2012), p. 385
22. Stratton-Lake (2014)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitioni
sm-ethics/
23. Stratton-Lake (2013), p. 337
24. Ancient Ethical Theory , Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
25. Ivanhoe, P.J.; Van Norden, Bryan
William (2005). Readings in classical
Chinese philosophy. Hackett Publishing.
p. 60. ISBN 978-0-87220-780-6. "he
advocated a form of state
consequentialism, which sought to
maximize three basic goods: the wealth,
order, and population of the state"
26. Fraser, Chris, "Mohism ", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N.
Zalta.
27. Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward
L. (1999). The Cambridge History of
Ancient China. Cambridge University
Press. p. 761. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.
28. Van Norden, Bryan W. (2011).
Introduction to Classical Chinese
Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 52.
ISBN 978-1-60384-468-0.
29. Jay L. Garfield; William Edelglass
(2011). The Oxford Handbook of World
Philosophy . Oxford University Press.
p. 62. ISBN 978-0-19-532899-8. "The
goods that serve as criteria of morality
are collective or public, in contrast, for
instance, to individual happiness or well-
being"
30. Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958). "Modern
Moral Philosophy" . Philosophy. 33 (124):
1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943 .
31. Mackie, J.L. (1990) [1977]. Ethics:
Inventing Right and Wrong. London:
Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-013558-9.
32. Baqgini, Julian; Fosl, Peter S. (2007).
The Ethics Toolkit: A Compendium of
Ethical Concepts and Methods. Malden:
Blackwell. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-1-4051-
3230-5.
33. Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works
of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the
Superintendence of His Executor, John
Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media
Corporation. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4021-
6393-7.
34. Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism
(Project Gutenberg online edition)
35. Mill, John Stuart (1998).
Utilitarianism . Oxford: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875163-2.
36. "Utilitarian Theories" . Department of
Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University.
1996. Retrieved 28 July 2017.
37. Stanford.edu
38. Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological
Ethics'. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London:
Collier Macmillan: 343.
39. Orend, Brian. 2000. War and
International Justice: A Kantian
Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.
40. Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of
Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press:
160.
41. Kant, Immanuel. 1780. 'Preface'. In
The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics.
Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
42. Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section:
Transition from the Common Rational
Knowledge of Morals to the
Philosophical', Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals.
43. Lafollette, Hugh, ed. (2000). The
Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory .
Blackwell Philosophy Guides (1 ed.).
Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.
44. Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 53
45. Collin 2007, p. 78
46. Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 54
47. Payrow Shabani 2003, pp. 55–56
48. Tong, Rosemarie; Williams, Nancy
(May 4, 2009). "Feminist Ethics" .
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The
Metaphysics Research Lab. Retrieved
January 6, 2017.
49. Noddings, Nel: Caring: A Feminine
Approach to Ethics and Moral Education,
pp. 3–4. University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1984.
50. Noddings, Nel: Women and Evil, p.
222. University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1989.
51. Roger T. Ames (2011). Confucian Role
Ethics: A Vocabulary. University of Hawaiʻi
Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-3576-7.
52. Chris Fraser; Dan Robins; Timothy
O'Leary (2011). Ethics in Early China: An
Anthology . Hong Kong University Press.
pp. 17–35. ISBN 978-988-8028-93-1.
53. Sim, May, 2015, “Why Confucius’
Ethics is a Virtue Ethics”, in Besser-Jones
and Slote (2015), pp. 63–76
54. Wonsuk Chang; Leah Kalmanson
(2010). Confucianism in Context: Classic
Philosophy and Contemporary Issues,
East Asia and Beyond . SUNY Press.
p. 68. ISBN 978-1-4384-3191-8.
55. "Ethics: Origin and Development" by
Pëtr Kropotkin
56. "Anarchist morality", chapter VI, Pëtr
Kropotkin
57. "Astroethics" . Archived from the
original on October 23, 2013. Retrieved
December 21, 2005.
58. Freemont, P.F.; Kitney, R.I. (2012).
Synthetic Biology. New Jersey: World
Scientific. ISBN 978-1-84816-862-6.
59. Mautner, Michael N. (2009). "Life-
centered ethics, and the human future in
space" (PDF). Bioethics. 23 (8): 433–440.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00688.x .
PMID 19077128 .
60. Mautner, Michael N. (2000). Seeding
the Universe with Life: Securing Our
Cosmological Future (PDF). Washington,
DC. ISBN 978-0-476-00330-9.
61. Smith, A (1776/1952). An Inquiry Into
the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, p. 55.
62. Berle, A.A., & Means, G.C. (1932). The
Modern Corporation and Private Property.
New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. In
this book, Berle and Means observe,
"Corporations have ceased to be merely
legal devices through which the private
business transactions of individuals may
be carried on. Though still much used for
this purpose, the corporate form has
acquired a much larger significance. The
corporation has, in fact, become both a
method of property tenure and a means of
organizing economic life. Grown to
tremendous proportions, there may be
said to have evolved a 'corporate
system'—as there once was a feudal
system—which has attracted to itself a
combination of attributes and powers,
and has attained a degree of prominence
entitling it to be dealt with as a major
social institution. ... We are examining this
institution probably before it has attained
its zenith. Spectacular as its rise has
been, every indication seems to be that
the system will move forward to
proportions which stagger imagination
today ... They [management] have placed
the community in a position to demand
that the modern corporation serve not
only the owners ... but all society." p. 1.
63. Jones, C.; Parker, M.; et al. (2005). For
Business Ethics: A Critical Text . London:
Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-415-31135-
9.
64. ferrell, o.c (2015). Business Ethics:
Ethical Decision Making and Cases.
ISBN 978-1-305-50084-6.
65. Wallach, Wendell; Allen, Colin (2008).
Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right
from Wrong. USA: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537404-9.
66. Cook, Martin L.; Syse, Henrik (2010).
"What Should We Mean by 'Military
Ethics'?". Journal of Military Ethics. 9 (2).
p. 122.
67. Goffi, Emmanuel (2011). Les Armée
Françaises Face à la Morale [The French
Army Facing Morale] (in French). France:
L'Harmattan. ISBN 978-2-296-54249-5.
68. Thompson, Dennis F. "Political Ethics".
International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed.
Hugh LaFollette (Blackwell Publishing,
2012).
69. See, for example, work of Institute for
Local Government, at www.ca-
ilg.org/trust .
70. Morton, Neil (October 2009).
"Publication ethics". Pediatric Anesthesia.
19 (10): 1011–1013. doi:10.1111/j.1460-
9592.2009.03086.x . PMID 19619189 .
71. Wager, E; Fiack, S; Graf, C; Robinson,
A; Rowlands, I (31 March 2009). "Science
journal editors' views on publication
ethics: results of an international survey" .
Journal of Medical Ethics. 35 (6): 348–
353. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028324 .
PMID 19482976 .
72. Scollon, Ron (June 1999).
"Plagiarism". Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology. 9 (1–2): 188–190.
doi:10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.188 .
JSTOR 43102462 .
73. Wager, Elizabeth; Williams, Peter
(September 2011). "Why and how do
journals retract articles? An analysis of
Medline retractions 1988—2008". Journal
of Medical Ethics. 37 (9): 567–570.
doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964 .
JSTOR 23034717 . PMID 21486985 .
74. Sanjeev, Handa (2008). "Plagiarism
and publication ethics: Dos and don'ts" .
Indian Journal of Dermatology,
Venereology and Leprology. 74 (4): 301–
303.
75. Sigelman, Lee (2000). "Publication
Bias Reconsidered". Political Analysis. 8
(2): 201–210.
doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029813
. JSTOR 25791607 .
76. Peters, Jamie L.; Sutton, Alex J.;
Jones, David R.; Abrams, Keith R.;
Rushton, Lesley; Moreno, Santiago G.
(July 2010). "Assessing publication bias in
meta-analysis in the presence of between-
study heterogeneity". Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in
Society). 173 (3): 575–591.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2009.00629.x .
77. Smith, Richard (July 26, 1997).
"Misconduct in Research: Editors
Respond: The Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) Is Formed" . British Medical
Journal. 315 (7102): 201–202.
doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7102.201 .
JSTOR 25175246 . PMC 2127155 .
PMID 9253258 .
78. Carol Gilligan (2009). In a Different
Voice. Harvard University Press.
ISBN 978-0-674-03761-8.
79. Ellis, C (2007). "Telling secrets,
revealing lives: Relational ethics in
research with intimate others". Qualitative
Inquiry. 13: 3–29.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.574.7450 .
doi:10.1177/1077800406294947 .
80. Ellis, C. (1986). Fisher folk. Two
communities on Chesapeake Bay.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
81. Ellis, C. (1995).Final negotiations: A
story of love, loss, and chronic illness.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
82. See, for example, Lapsley (2006) and
"moral psychology" (2007).
83. See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008)
and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes:
"Moral psychology is the study of morality
in its psychological dimensions" (p. 86).
84. See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
85. Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary
Ethics" . Archived from the original on
October 7, 2013. Retrieved January 5,
2010.
86. Hary Gunarto, Ethical Issues in
Cyberspace and IT Society, Symposium
on Whither The Age of Uncertainty, APU
Univ., paper , Jan. 2003

References
Hoy, D. (2005). Critical Resistance from
Poststructuralism to Postcritique.
 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Lyon, D. (1999). Postmodernity (2nd
ed.). Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Singer, P. (2000). Writings on an Ethical
Life. Harper Collins Publishers,
London.

Further reading
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
The London Philosophy Study Guide
offers many suggestions on what to
read, depending on the student's
familiarity with the subject: Ethics
Encyclopedia of Ethics. Lawrence C.
Becker and Charlotte B. Becker,
editors. Second edition in three
volumes. New York: Routledge, 2002. A
scholarly encyclopedia with over 500
signed, peer-reviewed articles, mostly
on topics and figures of, or of special
interest in, Western philosophy.
Azurmendi, J. 1998: "The violence and
the search for new values" in Euskal
Herria krisian, (Elkar, 1999), pp. 11–
116. ISBN 84-8331-572-6
Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A
short introduction to ethics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
De Finance, Joseph, An Ethical Inquiry,
Rome, Editrice Pontificia Università
Gregoriana, 1991.
De La Torre, Miguel A., "Doing Christian
Ethics from the Margins", Orbis Books,
2004.
Derrida, J. 1995, The Gift of Death,
translated by David Wills, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Fagothey, Austin, Right and Reason,
Tan Books & Publishers, Rockford,
Illinois, 2000.
Levinas, E. 1969, Totality and infinity, an
essay on exteriority, translated by
Alphonso Lingis, Duquesne University
Press, Pittsburgh.
Perle, Stephen (March 11, 2004).
"Morality and Ethics: An Introduction" .
Retrieved February 13, 2007.,
Butchvarov, Panayot. Skepticism in
Ethics (1989).
Jadranka Skorin-Kapov, The
Intertwining of Aesthetics and Ethics:
Exceeding of Expectations, Ecstasy,
Sublimity. Lexington Books, 2016.
ISBN 978-1-4985-2456-8
Solomon, R.C., Morality and the Good
Life: An Introduction to Ethics Through
Classical Sources, New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1984.
Vendemiati, Aldo, In the First Person,
An Outline of General Ethics, Rome,
Urbaniana University Press, 2004.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis
Splendor , August 6, 1993.
D'Urance, Michel, Jalons pour une
éthique rebelle, Aléthéia, Paris, 2005.
John Newton, Ph.D. Complete Conduct
Principles for the 21st Century, 2000.
ISBN 0-9673705-7-4.
Guy Cools & Pascal Gielen, The Ethics
of Art. Valiz: Amsterdam, 2014.
Lafollette, Hugh [ed.]: Ethics in
Practice: An Anthology. Wiley Blackwell,
4th edition, Oxford 2014. ISBN 978-0-
470-67183-2
An entire issue of Pacific Island Studies
devoted to studying "Constructing
 Moral Communities" in Pacific islands,
2002, vol. 25: Link
Paul R. Ehrlich (May 2016), Conference
on population, environment, ethics:
where we stand now (video, 93 min),
University of Lausanne
Yunt, Jeremy D. 2017. Faithful to
Nature: Paul Tillich and the Spiritual
Roots of Environmental Ethics. Barred
Owl Books.

External links

Ethics
at Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions
from
Wiktionary
Media
from
Wikimedia
Commons
Quotations
from
Wikiquote
Texts from
Wikisource
Textbooks
from
Wikibooks
 Resources
from
Wikiversity
Data from
Wikidata

Meta-Ethics at PhilPapers
Normative Ethics at PhilPapers
Applied Ethics at PhilPapers
Ethics at the Indiana Philosophy
Ontology Project
"Ethics" . Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
An Introduction to Ethics by Paul
Newall, aimed at beginners.
Ethics , 2d ed., 1973. by William
Frankena
Ethics Bites , Open University podcast
series podcast exploring ethical
dilemmas in everyday life.
National Reference Center for
Bioethics Literature World's largest
library for ethical issues in medicine
and biomedical research
Ethics entry in Encyclopædia
Britannica by Peter Singer
The Philosophy of Ethics on
Philosophy Archive
Kirby Laing Institute for Christian
Ethics Resources, events, and
 research on a range of ethical subjects
from a Christian perspective.
Basic principle of ethics summary talk
International Association for Geoethics
(IAGETH)
International Association for
Promoting Geoethics (IAPG)
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at
Santa Clara University Resources for
analyzing real-world ethical issues and
tools to address them.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Ethics&oldid=879300778"
Last edited 5 days ago by Kanguole

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.