Welcome to the Ethics page!
Why be moral? / Should you be free to injure yourself? / It's all relative! / Revenge or self-defence? / Do you own your genes? / Do you have a right to live or die? / What if torture gets results? / Is there a drink in this for me?
Just click my image to take a look and get your discussion started...
Is progress in ethics an illusion?
We live in a world of change... (see more)
Can the study of ethics make you a morally better person?
Can studying ethics be a quick root to sainthood? Is there a danger that you might become morally smug? Could ethics make you cynical about human nature?
You can study religion without becoming religious. Can you study ethics without becoming more sensitive to moral issues?
The first issue of Dialogue was published in 1993 to support the teaching of A-level Religious Studies in British schools. We now reach most A-level centres in the UK and have a much wider readership which includes college and university departments world-wide. We publish high quality introductory articles on the Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Biblical Studies by specialists in the various fields. Dialogue is published twice a year, in November and April.
Click the logo or cover to go to the Dialogue website....
The Radio 4 series 'In Our Time' chaired by Melvyn Bragg, has covered a good number of topics relevant to the study of ethics.
Podcasts are freely available covering: Free Will, Guilt, Altruism, Duty, Virtue, Good and Evil, as well as many other areas of philosophy and individual thinkers.
Just click on the image to go to the website page.
Mary Warnock 'Dishonest to God' Continuum, 2010
When I bought this book, I assumed from its title that it would contribute mainly to the
Philosophy of Religion. I was wrong. It’s a book that everyone studying ethics should read.
The first half of the book gives a wonderfully clear outline of the issues of life and death – abortion, euthanasia, IVF, the status and treatment of the human foetus, cloning, stem cell research – in terms of the debates when these matters were brought before parliament in the UK.
For anyone doing ethics at A level, this is a wonderful place to start to unpack these issues.
She also explores the basis upon which the law and ethics should be built, the main thrust of her argument (and hence the title of the book) being that religious authority should not be presented as an alternative to rational debate. Those wanting to legislate for a secular society should present reasons for their view that are accessible to anyone, whether religious or not. Religion is seen as a source of imaginative experience and can thus contribute to moral debate, but when it comes to legislation it should not claim any special authority.
The book also explores the relationship between morality and law – setting the moral debates in the context of the framing of legislation. It is a beautifully clear exposition of key ethical issues.
The Open University...
The Open University has a set of 10 podcasts introducing issues in ethics and political philosophy. Entitled 'Justice and Morality' you can hear them by following this link:
And for a whole range of material on ethics, visit the Open University on:
Sam Harris on science and moral values...
Agree with him or not - and I'm one of those who do not agree with him on many points - Sam Harris argues well and gives everyone a great deal to think about. Here is a short lecture in which he claims that science can provide a basis for ethical values. This is a great way to start the discussion about how facts and values are related. Naturally, being Sam Harris, he has a few juicy criticisms of religion in store, but don't let that (if you are from a religious background) stop you appreciating the logic of his argument. A great stimulus piece for groups of ethics students!
Whether facts and values should be kept separate has always been a big issue for ethics. Sam Harris, in the lecture featured here, wants to link them. Here, at the other extreme is A J Ayer (in Language, Truth and Logic)…
‘…. in saying that a certain type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement, not even a statement about my own state of mind. I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments. And the man who is ostensibly contradicting me is merely expressing his moral sentiments. So that there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition.’
But does that view – in which moral views are merely subjective wishes, without factual basis – adequate? Does it help or hinder the process of moral decision-making? And particularly, if it is merely a matter of ‘moral sentiments’, should we not ask why we should have such sentiments in the first place?
Listen to Sam Harris critically - the relationship between objective facts, science and moral values is rather more slippery than he would have us believe!