Ethics Project Report

Submitted By:
Md.Khaled Zohani Tonmoy
Id:1821398042
Course :PHI 104

Submitted To:
Md.Munir Hossain Talukder
Contents:
Introduction
Problem: 01 | Coyote Hunting Contest:
1.1 Theory Analysis of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
1.2 Problem Analysis
1.3 Solution of the Problem
Problem: 02 | Donation for Planting Trees
2.1 Theory Analysis: Utilitarian Ethics
2.2 Problem Analysis: Donation for planting trees
2.3 Solution of the Problem
Problem: 03 | Plastic Water Bottle Ban
3.1 Theory Analysis: Kantian Ethics
3.2 Problem Analysis
3.2 Solution of the problem
Conclusion:
Introduction:

Ethics shows us any conduct is moral or unethical. Ethics solves the questions of human
morality by defining concepts such as right or wrong, good or bad etc. To solve some ethical
dilemma there’s some theory based on ethics. By applying those theories, we can justify
situation. Here we have solved some situation based on few theories such as Aristotelian Ethics,
Utilitarian Ethics, Kantian Ethics.

Problem: 01 | Coyote Hunting Contest

1.1 Theory Analysis of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: Definition, Concepts, Key Terms

Introduction: Aristotle attempts to identify what are the characteristics of human being
differentiate it from other species. Every species has its own role in the universe. It is the
fulfilling its role well that defines what is the ultimate good of that thing or animal.
When one does what one is supposed to do, one feels fulfillment. In other words, when one is
what one is supposed to be, one is happy. Happiness / satisfaction is considered to be a good
thing. In fact, happiness is the ONLY really good thing in the sense that we don’t want it for the
sake of another thing (as a tool) but for its own sake.
There are natural criteria for judging whether the act is leads to happiness (eudemonia) to
misery. These criteria are defined by what the human being (as a species) is. By observing, what
makes human being happy (eudaimonia) and what make him suffer, one can find out what kind
of acts are virtuous (C. Dierksmeier)
There are 4 key concepts of Aristotelian virtue ethics. These are
Eudaimonism: “Eudaimonia” is an Aristotelian term slackly (and ineffectively) interpreted as
pleasure. To apprehend its role in virtue ethics we look to Aristotle’s function argument.
Aristotle recognizes that actions are not pointless because they have an aim. Every action aims
at some good. For example, the doctor’s vaccination of the baby aims at the baby’s health, the
English tennis player Tim Henman works on his serve so that he can win Wimbledon, and so on.
Furthermore, some things are done for their own sake (ends in themselves) and some things
are done for the sake of other things (means to other ends). Aristotle claims that all the things
that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an end that is the greatest good of
all. That good is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is happiness, contentment, and fulfillment; it’s the
name of the best kind of life, which is an end in itself and a means to live and fare well.

Aristotle then observes that where a thing has a function the good of the thing is when it
performs its function well. For example, the knife has a function, to cut, and it performs its
function well when it cuts well. This argument is applied to man: man has a function and the
good man is the man who performs his function well. Man’s function is what is peculiar to him
and sets him aside from other beings—reason. Therefore, the function of man is reason and the
life that is distinctive of humans is the life in accordance with reason. If the function of man is
reason, then the good man is the man who reasons well. This is the life of excellence or of
eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the life of virtue—activity in accordance with reason, man’s highest
function.

The importance of this point of eudaimonistic virtue ethics is that it reverses the relationship
between virtue and rightness. A utilitarian could accept the value of the virtue of kindness, but
only because someone with a kind disposition is likely to bring about consequences that will
maximize utility. So the virtue is only justified because of the consequences it brings about. In
eudaimonist virtue ethics the virtues are justified because they are constitutive elements of
eudaimonia (that is, human flourishing and wellbeing), which is good in itself.
1.Agent-Bases Accounts of Virtue Ethics: Not all accounts of virtue ethics are eudaimonist.
Michael Slote has developed an account of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions
about which character traits are admirable. Slote makes a distinction between agent-focused
and agent-based theories. Agent-focused theories understand the moral life in terms of what it
is to be a virtuous individual, where the virtues are inner dispositions. Aristotelian theory is an
example of an agent-focused theory. By contrast, agent-based theories are more radical in that
their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents
who perform those actions. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as
benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc. and we can identify these by looking at the people we
admire, our moral exemplars.

2.The Ethics of care: Finally, the Ethics of Care is another influential version of virtue ethics.
Developed mainly by feminist writers, such as Annette Baier, this account of virtue ethics is
motivated by the thought that men think in masculine terms such as justice and autonomy,
whereas woman think in feminine terms such as caring. These theorists call for a change in how
we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues exemplified by women, such as taking
care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc. These virtues have been
marginalized because society has not adequately valued the contributions of women. Writings
in this area do not always explicitly make a connection with virtue ethics. There is much in their
discussions, however, of specific virtues and their relation to social practices and moral
education, etc., which is central to virtue ethics.

3.Conclusion: There are many different accounts of virtue ethics. The three types discussed
above are representative of the field. There is a large field, however, of diverse writers
developing other theories of virtue. For example, Christine Swanton has developed a pluralist
account of virtue ethics with connections to Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s theory emphasizes the inner
self and provides a possible response to the call for a better understanding of moral psychology.
Swanton develops an account of self-love that allows her to distinguish true virtue from closely
related vices, e.g. self-confidence from vanity or ostentation, virtuous and vicious forms of
perfectionism, etc. She also makes use of the Nietzschean ideas of creativity and expression to
show how different modes of acknowledgement are appropriate to the virtues. Historically,
accounts of virtue have varied widely. Homeric virtue should be understood within the society
within which it occurred. The standard of excellence was determined from within the particular
society and accountability was determined by one’s role within society. Also, one’s worth was
comparative to others and competition was crucial in determining one’s worth.

Objectives to virtue Ethics: The following section presents three objections and possible
responses, based on broad ideas held in common by most accounts of virtue ethics.

a. Self-Centeredness
 b. Action Guiding
c. Moral Luck

1.2 Problem Analysis

Coyote Hunting Contest

Basically this hunting is unethical. Hunter across the provinces are encourage to participate in
the tournament they are allowed to kill coyotes anywhere where the private landowners
granted permission. If this continues one day, the Coyotes will be extinct. Then people will
target another animal. Through this there will be no animal left in the Earth. This hunting
contest describes as ‘reckless’ and ‘inhuman’ by some critics. People are hunting not because of
food but for their enjoyment. Which is completely immoral. Life is valuable to everyone so
people should not take animal’s life for their own enjoyment. Rare animals will become extinct
if they don’t stop. Animals can’t speak that doesn’t mean we will do anything to them. Every
living being is important in this world. Like we every animal is also important. If the animals
start to reduce then our ecosystem will be affected. We are heading towards a world without
animal. According to virtue ethics man’s action is for goods. But this shows man’s action is not
for good it’s for their own enjoyment. There’s no ethics in the world that will support inhuman
attitude towards any living being. As we have the right to live peacefully animals also has the
right to live peacefully. Here the extreme problem is created by the organizers. The organizer
said that “Even the death threats won’t stop him from hosting the tournament again this year”.
This people are way stubborn to realize that this hunting is unethical. They are stacked to their
own decision. It’s their inhuman attitude towards the animals. They are not listening to anyone.
Doing as their own. And they think that there’s nothing can stop them from organizing. For a
healthy living every animal is important if one goes out from earth then this will affect the
whole biodiversity.

1.3 Solution of the Problem

We are living in the world of modernization. There are so many source to be entertained. Then
why killing animals? According to the Virtue ethics man’s actions should be for good. But here
their actions are doing bad to the coyote. Killing any animal without any reason is never ethical.
Strict law should be imposed for this hunting contests. All this sort of contests should be
banned. There should be strict restriction on hunting. If anyone breaks the law they should be
imprisoned or highly charged for committing this guilty act. They should give moral and ethical
lessons. If any person has ethics they won’t do harm to any other living being. As our life is
valuable to us we should value animal’s life also. If we have the right to live on earth they also
have the same right.

Problem: 02 | Donation for Planting Trees

2.1 Theory Analysis: Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian Ethics: Definition, Concepts, Key Terms

Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Utilitarianism is one
of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of
philosophy
English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham and Economist John Stuart Mill from late 18 th century
and19th century developed “Utilitarian Ethics”.
Definition: Utilitarianism is basically determining right from wrong consequences. This ethics
maximize the benefits and minimize the harm for the majority.
Utilitarian’s believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount
of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad
things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of
commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or
supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarian’s think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable
is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.
Bentham wrote that everyone prefers pleasure over pain. It is with this belief that utilitarian
moral principles are founded (Sandal, 2010). He also held that we ought to maximize the good,
that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’.
Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness
counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good
counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall
good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me.
We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The
former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-utilitarianism."
Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a
situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results
(or the least amount of bad results).

Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine 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 broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding.
Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules.

2.2 Problem Analysis: Donation for planting trees

There are two cases. Should I donate for planting trees or should I donate for homeless people?
Both of the tasks are important. Planting trees will be a very good decision as it will create a
huge impact on Environmental improvement. The world is being developed. As a result, the
number of factories are increasing day by day. So the emission of toxic gases is increasing.
Because of industrialization the number of trees are decreasing as industrialization needs more
space. Thus trees are being cut in a huge scale. Deforestation has been a common case in
industrialized area. As a result, the global climate is changing rapidly. The amount of CO2 is
increasing. Air pollution is a scenario because of this situation. At this moment the existence of
animal in earth is in danger. In this situation only Tree Plantation can save the earth and the
animal living inside the earth as well. So Donation for tree plantation will be a wise decision.

But on the other hand, the homeless people must be resettled as all human being deserves the
right of having home from the 4 basics rights of human. So it is also important to donate for the
homeless people. They are also human. So they also deserve the life standard of normal living
quality. So it the duty of the society to ensure their needs as they are the minority of people of
our society. They must not be neglected. They must be resettled. We have to ensure their
rehabilitation.
So this is the situation. Both of the case is important. To decide the best option, we need to
learn Ethics.
2.3 Solution of the Problem:
Planting tree and rehabilitation of homeless people both of the task is important. So in this
critical situation to decide the right one we need to look into Utilitarian Ethics. Utilitarian Ethics
said that the work that maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for
the greatest number’. There are two type of Utilitarian ethics. From them the ACT utilitarian
Ethics can solve the problem in this regard. The principle of ACT utility is applied directly to each
alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings
about the best results (or the least amount of bad results).
So now to decide we need to calculate the consequences of the both situations. Then we need
to choose that one which brings good to the maximum number of peoples and best result.
Rehabilitation of homeless people will benefit only the minority people. They are less in
number in the society. On the other hand, donation for planting trees will help the whole
society including the homeless people as they will get shelter from the trees. Using the wood,
they can build the house for themselves as well.
So in this situation, according to ACT Utilitarianism, Donation for planting trees will be the best
option as it increases the number of utility and benefits the large number of people.

Problem: 03 | Plastic Water Bottle Ban

3.1 Theory Analysis: Kantian Ethics

This Problem can be solved using Kantian Ethics.

Kantian Ethics: Definition, Concepts, Key Terms

German philosopher Immanuel Kant introduced the deontological moral theory named
“Kantian Ethics”
Definition: Central to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which
acts on all people, regardless of their interests or desires. Kant formulated the categorical
imperative in various ways.

Kant said that The Categorical Imperative is the absolute code of morality. The Categorical
Imperatives determines our moral duty or tasks.
So now what is Morality and imperatives? What does it mean for one's duty to be determined
by the categorical imperative?
Imperative: An imperative is a command or obligations on tasks. For example, “Pay your
Taxes”, “Don’t kill animals”, “Don’t hunt wild animals” etc.
Hypothetical Imperatives: These imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant
desire. For instance, if you want to watch a movie, then buy the ticket. This command doesn’t
apply to you, if you don’t want to watch movie. Another example, your teacher says “Study
hard to get good grades!”- if you don’t want an outstanding grade or satisfied with a simple
grade then you don’t need to study hard. So this command doesn’t applicable to you.
Categorical Imperatives: categorical Imperatives are unconditional commands. For instance,
“Don’t cheat on exam”. Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you
may not cheat.
The connection between morality and categorical imperatives:  Morality must be based on the
categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that
you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.

The way categorical imperative works: There are three different formulations of the
categorical imperative. That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is. 

Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this
is true.  The second formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a
categorical imperative.  Here is the first formulation.

1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law):  "Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]."
a) What is a maxim?  A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act.  For example, I might
make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I
might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family.

b) Basic idea:  The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself
that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well.  You are not allowed to make
exceptions for yourself.  For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then
you are obligated to keep your own promises.

c) More detail:  More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that
you are willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar
situation.  For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing
to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to
happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what
you wanted.  So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then
you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical
imperative.  It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

3.2 Problem Analysis

Nothing could be more emblematic than towns and cities throughout the United States run by
feel-good liberals who are banning single-serve bottled water in a misguided effort to "Go
Green." (Cohen, 2019)
Plastic waste creates huge problems for the health and environment. The waste generated by
single use bottles is presented as a significant environmental problem. Bottled water is costlier.
Rachel Johnson, a nutrition professor at the university did an examination on student and
stuffs. She found out that total number of beverages sold in plastic bottles increased. Plastic in
other liquid bottles are many times thicker than flimsy water bottles. Students banned bottled
water but their intake of other liquid increased in greater quantity. They consumed unhealthier
sugary drink. In the university total calories from beverages rose by over 20% on a per capita
basis. Its causing harm to student’s health. Other liquids make people obese then healthy. Total
volume of plastic garbage produced on the university increased.
On an example, at the San Francisco airport, single-serve bottled water is now banned for sale,
while water bottles larger than 1 liter are still allowed to be sold, which means millions of
thirsty consumers looking for a sugar-free, calorie-free beverage will be forced to buy bottled
water in larger plastic bottles, doing more harm to the planet than the bottles' smaller
counterparts. (Cohen, 2019)
Plastic bottles are harmful. Doing anything against ethics is wrong. No one should do anything
that harm the environment and health.

3.2 Solution of the problem

In terms of the morality of certain actions, independent of the individuals and collective agents
who commit them, there are two specific ways that the environmental harms caused by single-
use plastics consumption can be diminished. The first is one is decreasing waste of single use
plastics. Reducing waste is obviously better than doing nothing. But there are still some
problems with even the most effective waste reduction methods. While waste reduction
methods like recycling address some utilitarian concerns, which centers waste as the
consequences of consumption, and potentially virtue-based concerns of disposability and
apathy, since recycling addresses both the willful ignorance of consumers to an extent as well
as forces them to recognize the amount of single-use plastics they are using, there still exist
concerns from a deontological perspective. Not only does reducing use eliminate the
consequences of waste production and disposal, it also does not violate moral principles
relating to participating in collective harms or reflect an individual’s apathy or cultivate a
culture of disposability. (Goodwine)
According to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts on all
people, regardless of their interests or desires. Kant formulated the categorical imperative in
various ways. (Edward N. Zalta)
According to his saying, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are
willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation.
So ban of plastic bottle must be proposed to the Government which will benefit the whole
nation and the environment as well. Because degrading of plastic takes a large amount of time
which is really harmful for the society. So to make it as absolute code of morality thus
everybody follows it whether they like it or not plastic bottle must be banned for the sake of
greater benefits. Banning Plastic bottle may cause dissatisfaction to some people but by Kant’s
theory it must be implemented as the deontological theory says.
Conclusion:
In any situation if we apply the above theories in our daily life then solving problems will easier
for us. Being ethical is great. There will be no one who can point on the decision. Ethics always
means to do the right thing for the majority and support the right.