Ethics

Ethics Study Guide ©2018 Achieve Page 114 of 116 explained to Crito why he must abide by the laws of Athens even when applied unjustly. Keep in mind that Socrates believed that harming a person meant making him less good, less virtuous, less excellent. Thus, a person is harmed by making him less just or good. Thus, as long as you retain your virtue, you are not harmed. This is why, for Socrates, it was better to suffer an injustice than to do one. By suffering an injustice, one does not show one’s self to be vicious (without virtue); by doing an injustice, one does show one’s self to be vicious. Crito gave three arguments as to why Socrates should escape. They were: not escaping would harm Socrates’ friends because they would be ridiculed for lacking the courage to help him escape and their reputations would suffer; not escaping would make it impossible for Socrates to provide for his children; and not escaping would make it impossible for Socrates to continue to teach philosophy, therefore his enemies would have won. Socrates, in turn, replied in defense of himself. He accepted the principle that one ought not to harm one’s friends. So long as Socrates did not lead his friends to commit an injustice, he did not harm them. One must first determine whether escape is unjust; if it is, then by allowing his friends to help him escape, Socrates would be truly harming them. Socrates’ defense for Crito’s second argument was that one benefits one’s children by making them just and virtuous. If escaping is unjust, and Socrates escaped, then he would show himself unfit as a teacher of virtue—he would have shown that he did not know what virtue is, and so he could not make his children just or virtuous. Socrates’ final argument was that if he, Socrates, wanted to teach philosophy, he must not show himself to be ignorant of virtue. Socrates believed that knowledge is virtue, to know the good is to do the good. If he acted wrongly, he would have shown that he had no knowledge to give to others. Teleological Moral Theory can be described as the “ethics of what is good.” A teleological ethical decision considers rightness or wrongness based on the outcomes of that decision. Teleological moral theory is any that is both axiological and consequential. The principle forms of this theory are: • Micro ethics is concerned with the good of the group when the good is the good of the individuals that make up the group. • Macro ethics values the survival and well-being of individuals, groups, and entities (such as nature). The good of the whole does not necessarily relate to the good of the parts. Utilitarianism is one example of a consequentialist moral theory. At the core of utilitarianism is the Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle. An ethical decision is one that offers the greatest net utility: the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Virtue Ethics places an emphasis on who you are rather than on what you do. Morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than the belief that, in order to live a moral life, one must begin by developing good character. We, therefore, ought to act in ways that exhibit virtues (such as courage or compassion), even if that means doing what might generally be seen as bad or bringing about undesirable consequences.