1

Chapter 2: Origin and Definition of Ethics

Section 1: The Origin of Ethics

Ethics originated from various cultures and civilisations. That is why it is not a common
code of law for all nations. Some civilisations had times when there was no knowledge of what
is right and what is wrong. They, therefore, had no ethical feelings and no general standards of
ethics which were accepted. These situations or conditions continued even after the bigger
societies formed themselves into states. As such, the earliest systems of law and of punishment
were set up without the influence of anything like moral feelings or a sense of justice. However,
is there such a thing as a moral truth taught by nature and independent of ecclesiastical, political,
and every other kind of social authority? Is there a moral law that is natural in the sense of being
universally and incontestably valid for men at all places and all times, indeed valid for any
being that thinks and feels and are we capable of knowing that there is such a law? At a later
stage of development, people discovered that some actions are good, and some are bad or
wrong. As such, some people always try to do what is good and avoid what is bad or wrong.
They also try to advise others to do the good and warn them against doing what is bad or wrong.
Some suppose that we have discovered a natural sanction for a given type of conduct if we can
show how it happens that the individual feels compelled to act that way. It may be, for example,
that when we first render services to others, we do so in the hope that we will receive similar
services in return. We thus form the habit of performing such services, and then we find that
we are motivated to do so even when we have no thought of recompense. Some would say that
we have here the natural sanction for the duty to love one’s neighbours. But any such view is
entirely wrong. A feeling of compulsion may well be a force that drives us to action, but it is
not a sanction that confers validity. Some think that motives stemming from hope and fear
constitute a natural sanction for certain types of conduct. Thus, we may take an interest in the
general good merely because we know that people in more powerful positions will look with
favour upon certain types of action and with disfavour upon others. If this sort of thing is a
natural sanction, then so, too, are the lowest forms of flattery and cowardice. But virtue proves
itself most truly when neither threats nor promises can divert her from the path that she has set
upon. As such, we cannot regard ethics as a purely academic study. The fact is that it has innate
connections with the daily lives of people. Every person who is troubled by certain situations
in his or her life, and who is also reflective, is a philosopher of ethics to an extent. Ethics,
2

therefore, originated from people asking questions and wondering about the activities around
them. At a certain time, people believe that no one should take a human life. They also believe
that they have to defend their communities, nations and countries against its enemies. Now,
what should a person do when his or her nation is at war? It is a default on the belief that one
should fight for his or her country if one refuses to do so. But on the other hand, if one does
fight, he or she may take human life. So, what should one do in such circumstances? How can
a person decide? The raw materials on which ethical theories are made are found in reflections
of this kind. That is to say that ethics originate from everyday life. The difference between the
reflections of the ordinary person and those of the philosopher is that those of the philosopher
is often more organised and usually more general. While an ordinary person may only be trying
to solve a particular problem by deciding on a particular form of action, the philosopher tries to
generalise. So, the philosopher’s question is not “What is the right course of action for an
individual in a circumstance?” but rather, “What is it that will be good for everybody at all
circumstances?” “What goal should we strive for, to live better?” “Is it an accumulation of
wealth?” “Is it having fun and pleasure?” “Is it happiness that we should strive for?” “Is it our
duty that we should do well?” The philosopher, like the ordinary person, starts a contemplation
of ethics by reflecting about common issues. He then goes further to discuss more general
issues. This kind of contemplation, when developed, usually forms ‘ethical theories.’ To this
extent, we can say that ethical theories are products of their own time. They arise because people
are not satisfied either with their personal lives or with the world in which they live. The origin
of these ideas is what we shall later discuss.

Stages of the Development of Ethics

Plato’sEthics

Plato (c.429-347 BC) has his ideas disseminated mainly from the conversations called
‘Dialogues’. These are the exchange of ideas between Socrates (470/69-399 BC) and other
Greek philosophers. They lived during the fifth century BC. Plato’s position about ethics since
300BC is that ‘evil is due to lack of knowledge.’ That suffices to say that if a person knows
what the good life is, he or she will not act immorally. Plato is of the belief that if people can
discover what is right, they will never act wickedly. But the philosophical question Plato asked
and addressed since that time was “How do one discover what is right, or the good?” This seems
3

to be something difficult when people differ so greatly in their opinions about the good life.
Plato’s answer to these questions is that “finding the nature of the good life is an intellectual
task very similar to the discovery of mathematical truth.” It has to be done by trained people
who must acquire certain kinds of knowledge, especially philosophy. His ethical philosophy is
referred to as Platonism.

Aristotle’s Ethics

Aristotle (c.384-322 BC) adopts a scientific or an empirical approach to ethics. Instead

of using reflection alone to discover the nature of the good life for all, he examined the talk and
behaviour of different people in everyday life. He observed that ordinary men consider some
people within the society as leading what can be called ‘good life’ and others leading what can
be called ‘bad life’. He further observed that the various lives which ordinary men consider to
be ‘good’ all have one common feature, which is happiness. In a like manner, the lives which
ordinary people consider to be ‘bad’ all have a common feature, which is sadness. While
answering the question ‘What is the good life for a man? Therefore, Aristotle’s answer, in a
short sentence, is: It is a life of happiness. His ethical philosophy is referred to as virtue ethics.

Epicurus’Ethics

Epicurus (c.341-271 BC) was the advocate of a type of ethics which has continued for
a very long time. He is of the view that pleasure is the only source of attaining the good life.
The influence of this ethics can be judged from the fact that the English language still contains
the word ‘epicure’, which is based upon the view of Epicurus. His ethics is said to be
inconsistent; it consists mainly of the advice for living moderately but pleasurably. It is wholly
sufficient to create a life for oneself in inner freedom, independent of the external world, which
in itself is neither good nor evil and which is not determined by a higher purpose or a
providence. But man’s forging of his happiness presupposes that he has what we call free will,
and that again presupposes that natural events do not adhere to a strictly predetermined course.
Apparently, the Epicureans were never really accepted. They considered ‘pleasure’ as the goal
in life and virtue as a means not as a goal, and therefore they were not socially acceptable.
Internally the school was dominated by its founder even as late as the second century AD, when
it faded. His ethical philosophy is referred to as hedonism.
4

Diogenes’Ethics
Diogenes (c.400–325) He practised extreme asceticism, rid himself of all conventions. He
moved to Athens and criticised many cultural conventions of the city. He modelled himself on
the example of Heracles and believed that virtue was better revealed in action than in theory.
He used his simple lifestyle and behaviour to criticise the social values and institutions of what
he saw as a corrupt, confused society. His ethics is that the world is fundamentally evil, so in
order to live a good life, one must withdraw from participation in it. This ethical theory argues
that if we trust our happiness to the possession of worldly things, we may find ourselves
betrayed. Diogenes, therefore, shocked the establishment by breaking with conventions,
quitting society, and living according to an ascetic ideal. His ethical philosophy is referred to
as cynicism.

Zeno’sEthics
Zeno of Citium (335–265), is said to have lectured in the third century BC. He and his
followers were very unhappy about the collapse of the Greek city-state and the Alexandrian
empire. They felt that social reconstruction was not possible. As a result, they devised the ethics
of advising people to attain personal salvation. The emphasis of this ethics is for one to learn to
be indifferent to external influences. Zeno’s followers were initially called Zenonians, but they
later came to be known with the name ‘Stoics’ because it was Zeno’s practice to lecture in the
Stoa or ‘painted colonnade,’ a prominent public building in the city centre. As a teacher and
Athenian resident, Zeno was held in very high esteem, especially for his strength of mind and
indifference to ordinary valuables and comforts. His ethical philosophy is referred to as
Stoicism.

Religious Ethics

Some conceptions of religion assert that a feature, such as a focus on a transcendent

reality or a non-conceptualise type of being, is at least a necessary condition of any “cultural
system” that could be considered religious. Religions search for the good in light of limits and
possibilities of the real, what is supremely good or most important. William Christian Sr. says
that religions are concerned with what is “more important than anything else in the universe”.
One is not religious if one merely believes that “some things are more important than other
things.” To be religious, one must hold that something is more important than everything else
and must relate that something (for example, God) to everything else in some sort of “pattern
of subordination”. A religious world-view, therefore, is a vision of the sacred: “By sacred is
meant here a quality of mysterious and awesome power other than man and yet related to him,
5

which is believed to reside in certain objects of experience”. Religions have an ethical

component. It frequently emanates from supernatural revelations or guidance. Some assert that
religion is necessary to live ethically. Simon Blackburn states that there are those who “would
say that we can only flourish under the umbrella of a strong social order, cemented by common
adherence to a particular religious tradition”. On this note, religious ethics stem from the divine
beliefs of society on the power of God. The belief in God had led people to accept the prophets
who were found in different societies at different times. Those prophets came with revelation
from God. In those revelations were commands, instructions, warnings and so on. It is through
those commands that the good life is pursued. The commands are regarded as an objective and
infallible guide to correct behaviour.

Spinoza’s Ethics

Spinoza (1632-1677) is regarded as one of the greatest writers on morals in the European
tradition since the Greeks. He has a flexible but honest attempt to discover the ‘good life’.
However, Spinoza is a rigid determinist. He says that ‘all things which come to pass do so
according to the eternal order and fixed laws of nature’. In holding to this view, he was in the
metaphysical tradition of the stoics. It means that no one is free to act capriciously or by chance;
all actions are determined by past experience, by physical and mental constitution, and by state
of the laws on nature at the moment. Spinoza is also a relativist. He holds that noting is good
or bad in itself, but it is only so in relation to someone. His unfinished treatise, On the
Improvement of the Understanding, shows the undogmatic and honest attempt to discover the
good life. His ethics is interpreted as offering guidance which, if followed will enable people
to avoid fear, anxiety and unhappiness.

Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian ethics is said to have been advocated by Francis Hudson in 1775. But the
most famous exponents of this ethics are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham was
extremely shy and sensitive. He always felt insecure in the company of strangers. However, he
became the head of a group of reformers in England called the ‘Philosophical Radicals’. This
group was, to a great extent, responsible for social and political changes in the country. The
British criminal code was said to be significantly improved by them. Mill’s father was a student
of Bentham and was influenced by the Benthamite doctrine that a man’s character and intellect
can be determined completely by his education. The utilitarians conceived their ethics as an
attempt to lay down an objective principle for determining when a given action was right or
6

wrong. This is a maxim which they call the principle of utility. According to this principle, “an
action is right in so far as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
Bentham and Mills have all interpreted this principle as a form of hedonism because it identifies
pleasure with happiness. But many modern utilitarians have are not hedonists. They hold the
view that the force of utilitarianism is to the fact that it lays stress upon the effects of an action.
If it produces surplus beneficial effects over harmful ones, then it is right, if not, then it is wrong.

Kant’s Ethics

Kant (1724- 1804) believed that ethics was the most important subject in philosophy. It
was Kant that used ethical arguments to establish the existence of God. His argument is that the
moral law requires that people be rewarded proportionately to their virtue. Kant’s ethical theory
was designed to answer one main question asked in various ways: What is morality? To put this
question in another way, one can say: What is a moral action as against a non-moral action? Or
to ask: What is the difference between the person who acts morally and one who does not? Kant
believed that these set of questions could be answered and that the key to it lay in distinguishing
between acts from inclination and acts done from a sense of duty. The inclination is to be
distinguished from obligation. An obligation is that which one ought to do despite one’s
inclination to do otherwise. Kant feels that a person is acting morally right only when he
suppresses his feelings and inclination and does that which he is obliged to do.
This section has introduced us to the origin of ethics and ethical theories. We discussed
that the early theories are characterised by their efforts to answer two questions: ‘What is the
good life for people?’ and, ‘How ought people have to behave?’ By examining these questions,
we interpreted them as a request for advice by people of different cultures and periods who
were baffled by certain characteristics of daily living. The various answers which the early and
later philosophers provided can be regarded as statements of advice to the individuals for a good
and praiseworthy life.

Section 2: DEFINITION OF ETHICS

The previous section discussed the origin of ethics. In this one, the attention is on the
definition of ethics. This could be easily captured by first looking at the etymology of the word.
For its definition, ethics is nothing if not a judgment about motives and their consequences.
7

Furthermore, because these motives develop and occur in given contexts, that is, within and
through actions and language-in-use, there is the possibility that rhetorical action produces (or
causes to be produced) the linking of and negotiation between one order of motives and another.
It is the identification of certain definitions with the needs of other definitions that makes
possible an assessment of ethical actions and languages. As such, ethics deal with the distinction
between right and wrong and the moral consequences of human action. In this light, every
human action has defined ethics. As a result, there is character ethics, which is personcentred;
there is research ethics, which is subject centred; professional ethics which is job centred, etc.
Definition of Ethics

Etymology

Ethics in Greek is êthikos, literally meaning something concerned with êthos (Greek, character),
which in turn is connected with ethos (social custom, habit).

Definition of Ethics

Thomas Nagel defines ethics as the philosophy that tries to understand a familiar type
of evaluation: the moral evaluation of people’s character traits, their conduct, and their
institutions. It is concerned with what bothers us about good and bad, the morally right and the
morally wrong thing to do, just or unjust regimes or law, howthings ought and ought not to be,
and how people should live. Simon Blackburn defines ethics as the study of the concept
involved in practical reasoning: good, right, duty, obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality,
choice. It is also the second-order study of the objectivity, subjectivity, relativism, or scepticism
that may attend claims made in these terms. Ethics has two parts: metaethics and normative
ethics. The first part, metaethics, is concerned with what ethical judgement means, what, if
anything, are they about, whether they can be true or false, and if so, what makes them true or
false. The second part, normative ethics, is concerned with the content of those judgements. For
instance, what features make an action right or wrong; what is a good life; what are the
characteristics of a good society? A central aspect of ethics is “the good life”, the life worth
living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important
than traditional moral conduct. But there is a variety of terminologies: plain ‘ethics’ is used for
what we can call ‘morals’ (‘normative ethics’ is another term used for this); and there are the
more guarded terms ‘the logic of ethics’, ‘metaethics’, ‘theoretical ethics’, ‘philosophical
ethics’, and so on. In defining ethics, it will be significant to define other ideas closely attached
to it. These include ethical constructivism, ethical formalism, ethical naturalism, ethical
8

objectivism and ethical relativism. Ethical constructivism is the anti-realists view of ethics that
supposes the existence of ethical truth. It argues that human practices somehow constitute these
ethical truths. Examples of the practices are human emotions and reactions, human policies and
cultural habits. Ethical formalism is the view that the form of maxim or value of an action can
be inhibited sufficiently by public conditions to yield substantial ethical orders. It is a view
largely associated with Immanuel Kant, whose ethics we explained in first section of this
chapter. Ethical naturalism is the idea of placing ethical properties and ethical thoughts in the
natural world. It includes any belief that the nature of ethical thinking is exhaustively
understood in terms of natural propensities of human beings, without mysterious institutions,
or operations of conscience, or divine help. Ethical objectivism is the view that the claims of
ethics are objectively true. They are not relative to a subject or a culture, nor are they purely
objective. This opposes the error theories, scepticism, and relativism. The central problem,
however, is finding the source of the required objectivism. Ethical relativism is the view that
the truth of ethical claims is relative to the claim to the culture or way of life of those who hold
them. It, therefore, generalises to all of ethics what may reasonably be supposed true of all
matters of etiquette. This is summed up in the proverb “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”.
The doctrine is not easy to formulate although its spirit appeals especially to people afraid of
the imperial ambitions which they detect in Western liberalism.

Philosophers’ Role in Defining Ethics

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with studying and/or building up a
coherent set of ‘rules’ or principles by which people should strive to live. It is a systematic
approach to analysing, understanding and distinguishing matters of right and wrong, good and
bad, and admirable and deplorable as they relate to the relationships and the well-being of
societies. Many people do not consider it necessary to have a theoretical study of ethics for
them to conduct their everyday activities. Instead, most people carry around a useful set of day-
to-day ‘rules of thumb’ that influence and govern their behaviour in place of systematically
examined ethical frameworks. Common among the rules include; ‘it is wrong to steal’, ‘it is
right to help people in need’, and so on. But due to the changes and difficulties of life, these
simple rules are sometimes put to the test. Consider the thumb rule that it is wrong to kill. Our
definition of ethics in philosophy raises a series of questions on this rule. These include; is it
wrong to have capital punishment? Is it wrong to kill animals? Is it wrong to kill in self-defence?
Is the termination of pregnancy wrong? Is euthanasia wrong? Straightforward answers may not
always be forthcoming if we try to apply our everyday notions of right and wrong to these
9

questions. We need to examine these questions in more detail; and we need theoretical
frameworks that can help us to analyse complex problems and to find rational, coherent
solutions to those problems. While some people attempt to do this work individually, for
themselves, philosophers attempt to find general answers that can be used by everyone in
society.
That attempt by the philosophers is ethics in theory. They do this because when ethics
are involved, ethical determinations are applied through the use of formal theories, approaches,
and codes of conduct. Ethics is an active process rather than a static condition; as such, some
philosophers use the words ‘doing ethics.’ When people are doing ethics, therefore, they need
to support their assertions and belief with sound reasoning. Definition of ethics then entails that
even if people believe that ethics is subjective, they must be able to justify their position through
theoretical and logically based arguments.

CONCLUSION

After explaining the derivation of the word ‘ethics’, this unit looked at various
definitions of ethics. The concept involved in practical reasoning: good, right, duty, obligation,
virtue, freedom, rationality, choice. Two parts of the concept, metaethics and normative ethics,
were discussed. We also have shown what ethics is in its theoretical sense, and the philosophers
attempt to provide formal theories and approaches where straightforward answers are not
imminent.