# data[].attributes.body
Ethical practices should be exhibited in the workplace, at home, at school, out in the public, and even done in privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how to avoid being Unethical

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Academic Integrity in Social Work : Examples of Unethical Behavior

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is guide for students of the School of Social Work with information on academic integrity and plagiarism.

# data[].attributes.body
Moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.

# data[].attributes.body
Video on 1O traits of work ethics

# data[].attributes.body
Not morally correct

# data[].attributes.body
Definition of Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."

These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987). Revised in 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

# data[].attributes.body
Unethical behaviors people do in the workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
bSci21 Contributing Writer

Have you ever seen unethical behavior?If you did, did you say something or wonder whether it was truly unethical?Nearly three-quarter of employees who responded to one survey reported that they had observed unethical or illegal behavior by coworkers in the past year ( Gino et al., 2014) ."People often start their misconduct with small transgressions and then slide down a slippery slope" ( Gino et al., 2014).

From a behavioral perspective, one can hypothesize these small transgressions resulted in enough reinforcement to continue to behave towards larger transgressions, again possibly yielding further reinforcement, ultimately resulting in major unethical behavior (i.e., fraud, larceny).Unfortunately, the assumption that unethical workplace behavior is the product of a few "bad apples" has blinded many organizations to the fact that everyone is susceptible to their environment and can be unethical, even when we care a great deal about honesty, integrity, and following rules.Yet approaches to warding off those few "bad apples" need not to be drastic.

Arthur Schwartz (2015) wrote about a recent survey conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics Resource Center (ERC), sharing "within the past year, almost half of [those surveyed] personally witnessed some form of ethical misconduct." The "good news from the ERC study is that most American workers and employers do the right thing."The survey revealed most follow ethical standards of behavior, and are willing to report wrongdoing when they see it "(unless it's the company's Internet use policy, more on that in a minute)."

For those of us who have had the opportunity to focus on ethics and ethical behavior in the workplace, there is an abundance of literature and research to help guide our work to support organizations and specific individuals responsible for ethics in the workplace. For example, The Ethics and Compliance Initiative , the research arm is the ERC, published the results of a research report from the national business ethics survey stating "Employee Views of Leaders' Personal Conduct Drives Perceptions of their Ethical Leadership. Workers' Judge Leaders Primarily by Three Factors - the overall character of their leaders as experienced through personal interactions; how senior managers handle crises; and the policies and procedures adopted by senior leaders to manage the company (ECI, 2015).

According to Lattal and Clark (2011), there are behaviors that each of us can do to contribute to a "stronger ethical workplace", meaning people demonstrating behaviors deemed ethical.But where do you begin?

Well, first, let's review the 5 most common unethical behaviors according to the Ethics Resource Center.

5 Most Common Unethical Behaviors in the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) Survey

1. Misuse of company time. Whether it is covering for someone who shows up late or altering a time sheet, misusing company time tops the list. This category includes knowing a co-worker is conducting personal business on company time.By "personal business" the survey recognizes the difference between making cold calls to advance your freelance business and calling a spouse to find out how your sick child is doing.Misuse of company time is unethical.

2. Abusive Behavior. Too many workplaces are filled with leaders who use their position and power to mistreat others.Unfortunately, unless the situation involves race, gender or ethnic origin, there is often little to no legal protection against abusive behavior in the workplace. Abusive behavior is unethical.

3. Employee Theft. Whether its check tampering, not recording sales in order to skim, or manipulating expense reimbursements, employee theft is a crime and unethical.

4. Lying to Employees. The fastest way to lose the trust of your employees is to lie to them. If you ask employees whether their manager or supervisor has lied to them within the past year, you may be surprised at the results. Lying is unethical.

5. Violating Company Internet Policies. Cyberslackers. Cyberloafers. These are terms used to identify people who surf the internet when they should be working. This is a huge, multi-billion-dollar problem for companies. Who would have thought that checking your Facebook or Twitter account is becoming an ethical issue? It is. Violating company Internet policies is unethical.

How Behavior Science Can Help?

For those of us who are interested in ethical behavior in the workplace, we can help.There are two behaviors we can engage in to support leaders of organizations to drive ethical behavior: 1) give a little "nudge" to ethical behavior and 2) analyze organizational culture to evaluate its ethical practices using Behavioral Systems Analysis.

Have you ever had to sign a document with the phrase "I promise that the information I am providing is true" prior to signing?Well, some studies, although not empirical, suggest this statement nudges honesty.Individuals who sign when the statement is present before signing have been shown to be significantly more honest compared to those who reported first and signed at the bottom of the page.

Reinforce Specific Leadership Behaviors to Encourage Ethical Behavior

Transparency, communication, and accountability around ethical behaviors are a few of the leadership behaviors commonly suggested to leaders.The behavior scientist can provide focus education and coaching on these behaviors to enable leaders to demonstrate critical behaviors which demonstrate a focus on ethics and being ethical.

In addition, a common approach in Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) to analyzing the intricate components of an organization is Behavioral Systems Analysis (BSA).BSA is an approach to organizational design and management based on the premise that organizations are complex systems.In short, changes in one aspect of an organization affect performance in another part of the organization.BSA can arm organizations to further integrate ethical practices into a company.For example,Lattal & Clark (2007) provide a thoughtful list on ethical practices that organizations can employ to encourage ethics:

1. Set ethical values statements.

2. Discuss ethics during performance reviews.

3. Reinforce ethical behavior.

4. Retain ethical employees.

5. Make ethics a hiring priority.

This is further reinforced by the Ethics and Compliance Initiative (2015) whose recommendations based on the Research Report from the National Business Ethics Survey® (NBES®) consist of 4 recommendations:

1. Pay attention to personal character when hiring and make 24-7 integrity a job expectation.

2. Educate managers about the way employees evaluate leaders, including the impact of "private" behavior in the age of social media.

3. Encourage leaders to share credit for success and seek honest feedback from employees.

4. Annually review business objectives and policies to ensure they promote ethical performance.

When moral standards are unclear or unenforced, it's easy for employees to act in questionable behaviors that are readily rationalized.Environments that nudge employees in the right direction, leaders who demonstrate ethical behavior and encourage ethical behaviors, and organizational systems built to support ethical practices is the perfect ethical trio.

For Your Reading Pleasure:

Ethics and Compliance Initiative (ECI) (2015). A Research Report from the National Business Ethics Survey® (NBES®). Retrieved October 1, 2015 http://ecoaconnects.theecoa.org/newsite/research/eci-research/nbes/nbes-reports/ethical-leadership

Gino, F., Lisa D. Ordóñez, L.D., and Welsh, D. (2014) How Unethical Behavior Becomes Habit. Harvard Business Review.Retrieved on October 1, 2015 https://hbr.org/2014/09/how-unethical-behavior-becomes-habit/

Krapfl, J.E. and Kruja, B. (2015). Leadership and Culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, vol. 35, pages 28-43.

Lattal, A. D., & Clark, R. W. (2007). A good days work. New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, A. (2015). The 5 most common unethical behaviors in the workplace. Philadelphia Business Journal. Retrieved October 1, 2015 http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/blog/guest-comment/2015/01/most-common-unethical-behaviors-in-the.html

Verschoor, C.C. (2013). Ethical Behavior Differs Among Generations.

Manny Rodriguez, M.S. has over ten years experience, working with organizations across the globe within the Fortune 1000. He is an accomplished practitioner in the field of Behavior Analysis, highly regarded by his customers and colleagues alike. Manny is especially skilled at facilitating business teams to execute strategic plans and preparing leaders to engage employees to reach their maximum potential. Manny holds the position of Director of Continuing Education and Product Development for ABA Technologies, a pioneer in online professional development of behavior analysts, and is also the President of the Organizational Behavior Management Network.

Manny Rodriguez and ABA Technologies, Inc provides products and services for Behavior Analysts and the general public. Online Professional Development in ABA, Coaching/Mentoring Behavior Analysts, Speaking engagements such as Workshops/Seminars/Webinars, and Expert Consulting in ABA, OBM, Instructional Design and Teaching Behavior Analysis. For more information, contact info@abatechnologies.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Most Common Unethical Workplace Behaviors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Manny Rodriguez, M.S. bSci21 Contributing Writer Have you ever seen unethical behavior? If you did, did you say something or wonder whether it was truly unethical? Nearly three-quarter of employees who responded to one survey reported... #businessethics #ethicsintheworkplace #unethicalbehavior

# data[].attributes.body
Integrity,honesty, and respect are huge aspects of my life. I try my hardest to be all 3 because you get farther in life when you do what's right.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that your choices, your decision making, your concepts and your personality builds up your definition of Ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
Video of people doing random acts of kindness out in the public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RANDOM ACTS OF PEOPLE BEING KIND TO ONE ANOTHER!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/pages/End-of-the-Age-Bible-prophecy/238217082982663?fref=ts

# data[].attributes.body
Unethical practices is doing wrong things and going against most people's morals.

# data[].attributes.body
Denver Coffee Shop Tagged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Someone spray painted "white coffee" on the wall at ink! Coffee in Five Points and broke a window there in what appears to have been retaliation for a sign the business placed out front this week that read, "Happily gentrifying the neighborhood since 2014."

The sandwich board sign sparked outrage and - and drew national attention - when local writer and event organizer Ru Johnson shared a picture of it on her Twitter account Wednesday afternoon. Johnson, who has contributed to The Denver Post's Reverb and The Know sections, added the caption "yo @inkcoffee we are not cool with this sign on 29th and Larimer. Bad decision. Bad design. BAD. W.T.F."

The sign went viral on social media, motivating so many one-star reviews and angry posts on ink's Facebook page Wednesday night that the coffee-shop chain shut down the review function.

The Aspen-born company apologized for the sign Wednesday, first with a short message on Twitter and Facebook and later with a longer statement from founder and CEO Keith Herbert. But many people made it clear they did not feel the responses, some of which cast the sign as a joke, were enough.
Read more at The Denver Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Denver coffee shop tagged 'white coffee' after sign controversy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Someone spray painted "white coffee" on the wall at ink! Coffee in Five Points and broke a window there in what appears to have been retaliation for a sign the business placed out front this week that read, "Happily gentrifying the neighborhood since 2014."

# data[].attributes.body
Video on an Ethics lecture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recommended Readings: An Introduction to Ethics by John Deigh - http://amzn.to/2496GKz (affiliate link) Human Happiness and Morality: A Brief Introduction to Ethics by Robert Almeder - http://amzn.to/1UfjoEP (affiliate link) Good and Evil by Richard Taylor - http://amzn.to/24972ka (affiliate link) =================================================== In this lecture we look at the subject matter of ethics, distinguish between moral subjectivism and moral realism, discuss Hume's law, and look at the difference between teleological and deontological theories of ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
Video aboutUnethical behaviors at the Coca-Cola Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/join -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon is a free tool that allows you to develop cool animated clips and animated presentations for your website, office meeting, sales pitch, nonprofit fundraiser, product launch, video resume, or anything else you could use an animated explainer video.

# data[].attributes.body
Video on if one does exhibit Unethical behavior, there are going to be consequences

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado Springs Air Force Academy and Racism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FILE - In this Sept. 29, 2017 file photo, academy superintendent Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria speaks about race relations to U.S. Air Force cadets during lunch at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo. The Air Force Academy said Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, that racial slurs posted outside the dorm rooms of five black students were written by one of those students. The announcement was a jarring turn in an episode that prompted Silveria to make the widely viewed speech warning that racists were not welcome at the school. (Jerilee Bennett/The Gazette via AP, File)

An Air Force Academy cadet candidate once thought the victim of racial slurs at the preparatory school on campus was actually the vandal who scrawled the threatening messages across the note boards outside his room and the dwellings of classmates.

The academy confirmed that finding Tuesday afternoon, and stood by a stern speech given by its top general in the wake of the incident. Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria gathered cadets and staff members for a speech that has gone viral in videos posted across the internet. He said that those who can't respect others "need to get out."

"Regardless of the circumstances under which those words were written, they were written, and that deserved to be addressed," Silveria said in a Tuesday email. "You can never over-emphasize the need for a culture of dignity and respect - and those who don't understand those concepts, aren't welcome here."

The cadet candidate involved, whose name was not released, is no longer enrolled at the school.

In late September, five African-American cadet candidates at the prep school were targeted with a racial slur and the words "go home" on erasable note boards outside their room.

The incident kicked off a scandal at the school and led to a sweeping probe by academy police and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

"We can confirm that one of the cadet candidates who was allegedly targeted by racist remarks written outside of their dorm room was actually responsible for the act," academy spokesman Lt. Col. Allen Herritage said in an email. "The individual admitted responsibility and this was validated by the investigation."

Several sources say the cadet candidate, who hasn't been identified, committed the act in a bizarre bid to get out of trouble he faced at the school for other misconduct. The prep school offers a year of training for academy prospects who need academic help. The school is primarily used to fill athletic rosters for the academy's 37 NCAA teams.

Herritage wouldn't confirm the circumstances around the incident.

"We acknowledge that there may be additional information already in the public space, but we will refrain from discussing further details surrounding the investigation due to privacy act requirements," he said.

No matter its origins, the incident sparked a national discussion on racism and the academy's swift and public response. Silveria was widely praised for his strong speech, with some suggesting he run for high office after he leaves the service.

The academy for the past 15 years has focused on programs that attempt to curb racism, gender discrimination, sexual assault in the ranks and religious bigotry.

"Racism has no place at the Academy, in any shape or form. We will continue to create a climate of dignity and respect for all, encourage ideas that do so, and hold those who fail to uphold these standards accountable," Herritage said.

The racist incident was one of several woes to hit the school recently. Several players and coaches from the academy lacrosse team were suspended last month for unspecified misconduct.

Additionally, the school is investigating 13 freshmen accused of cheating on a test of basic military knowledge. The test includes simple questions, some asking cadets to recite quotes and name key military leaders.

--

Contact Tom Roeder: 636-0240

Twitter: @xroederx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Air Force Academy finds cadet candidate responsible for racist messages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Air Force Academy cadet candidate once thought the victim of racial slurs at the preparatory school on campus was actually the vandal who scrawled the threatening messages across the note boards outside his room and the dwellings of classmates.

# data[].attributes.body
Colorado Springs hospital accused of being discrimatory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An ultrasound technician says Memorial Hospital broke federal anti-discrimination laws by rescinding a job offer on account of her fibromyalgia and the narcotic painkillers she used to treat it.

Elena Sumler, of Colorado Springs, filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal district court Thursday against the hospital claiming it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The lawsuit alleges Sumler was forced to answer an illegal medical questionnaire, then lost out on a job at the hospital after acknowledging she took medications for fibromyalgia - a chronic condition related to arthritis and causes widespread muscle pain and tenderness.

She is seeking lost wages, damages and attorneys fees.

A spokesman for University of Colorado Health, which leases Memorial Hospital from Colorado Springs, did not immediately return calls from The Gazette seeking comment.

Click here to read more from our partners at The Gazette.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
woman sues colorado springs hospital for discrimination over disability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman sues Colorado Springs hospital for discrimination over disability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An ultrasound technician says Memorial Hospital broke federal anti-discrimination laws by rescinding a job offer on account of her fibromyalgia and the narcotic painkillers she used to treat it. Elena Sumler, of Colorado Springs, filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal district court Thursday against the hospital claiming it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

# data[].attributes.body
Kids being good Samaritans for their community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Where Police Meets Humanity & Heroism | Part

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I put together a series of news stories featuring kids who have been caught doing the right thing, being good citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

As an individual, you can choose to deal with the ebb and flow of daily life in only three possible ways -

1. You can sit there and do nothing, waiting for and taking whatever lumps and favours the flow of events might bestow upon you -- the life strategy typical of plants and couch potatoes;

2. You can act on the whim of the moment, without thought for the consequences, and hope for the best (however you choose to understand "best") -- the life strategy typical of "non-rational" animals, and those whose life strategy is to "go with the flow"; or

3. You can try to understand and predict (locally, and however approximately) the flow of events and choose to act in ways that appear to you to most likely result in "better" consequences (however you choose to understand "better") -- the life strategy typical of "rational" animals. (No need to overdramatize the division between "rational" and "non-rational" animals. It is sufficient to notice that the more or less random motions of an amoeba are qualitatively less "rational" than the directed motions of a mouse.)

All intentional (as opposed to accidental or unconscious) choice, at whatever level of discourse, is predicated on the assumption that one alternative is "better" than another - on some scale of valuation. The universal assumption that underlies Ethics is that "Life will be Better" if you choose "the Right thing to do" or "the Right way to live". As discussed in the Introduction to this exploration of Ethics, the philosophical subject of "Ethics" is the study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral judgments or choices made by people. A person's "ethics" or "morals" consists of those rules, habits and/or standards that the individual uses to determine the right choices, the virtuous alternatives, and the righteous behaviours. Those rules, habits and/or standards that the individual uses to choose the alternatives they think are most likely to result in "better" consequences, however they choose to understand "better".

"Ethics" answers the question - "What should I do now?" or "What is the right thing to do?"

The philosophical disagreements arise over -
What do you mean by, and how do you measure "better" ?
Better how, when ?
Whose life will be better ?
What, particularly, is the "right thing to do"?

Different Kinds of Ethical Theories

When it comes to the study of normative ethics, there are almost as many theories of how we should determine what we ought to do, as there are philosophers writing about the question. Fortunately, however, the large number of theories can be roughly divided into different categories by three key conceptual differences between them. These three conceptual differences can be illuminated by the answers that theorists provide to these three questions:

1. Realist versus Anti-Realist Ethics
-- Are (some) moral statements true?
2. Social versus Personal Ethics
-- Who Benefits?
3. Deontological versus Consequentialist versus Virtue Ethics
-- What kind of thing has Moral Value?

Here is a simplified diagram of the relationships between a number of Ethical Theories that I intend to discuss at length in these essays.

Before I can discuss the various recognized theories of Ethics that are presented in the diagram above, and discussed in the Philosophical literature, I must deal with Subjectivist Ethics. Ethical Subjectivism does not warrant a place in the diagram of the various ethical theories, because Ethical Subjectivism is an anti-theory. (It is more than just a non-theory. It is a system of ethics that makes the positive claim that there is no possible theory.) Ethical Subjectivism is the acceptance of the Primacy of Consciousness. It is therefore a denial of moral reality (and in that sense might be grouped with the Non-Cognitivist Anti-Realist theories of Ethics). No one who pretends to live by the tenets of Subjectivist Ethics can claim to live by any ethical standards or principles.

Depending on the individual expressing the ethical opinions, Subjectivist Ethics can be compatible with both Cognitivism (in that the speaker can express the opinion that she is stating moral facts) and Non-Cognitivism (in that the speaker can express the opinion that there are no moral facts, only attitudes). It might also be compatible with Moral Absolutism (in that the speaker can hold certain of her moral opinions to apply regardless of circumstances) and Moral Relativism (in that the speaker can assert that the truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of the individuals making the claims). It stands in contrast to Moral Realism (under which ethical statements are deemed to be independent of personal attitudes). Subjectivist Ethics starts with a person's personal opinion on what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral, what is good or evil. And that is where it stops. Subjectivist Ethics does not allow inquiries into why you might have these opinions. Allowing such investigations moves the moral agent towards Conventionalism or Contractualism or one of the other theories.

As we have explored, people have different opinions on moral matters. But Subjectivist Ethics maintains that there are no moral "facts of the matter" and no one is "right" in any objective sense. People just feel differently, and that is the end of it. Ethics becomes a matter of taste. I like chocolate and Abortion. You like pistachio and the Right to Life. There is no accounting for taste. You just have to tolerate the differences of opinion.

A person who adopts Subjectivist Ethics is necessarily morally infallible, because Subjectivist Ethics maintains that there are no objective moral properties or facts about which your opinions might be mistaken. Moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes of the moral agent. Any moral statement just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by the speaker. For a statement to be considered morally correct merely means that it correctly reflects the opinions and attitudes of the person of interest.

David Hume is perhaps the best known philosophical advocate of ethical subjectivism. But by applying the processes of logic and the standards of logical consistency, philosophers have developed his moral approach into the non-cognitive theory of Emotivism. Emotivism departs from Subjectivist Ethics because it maintains a logically consistent doctrine that moral statement are not truth apt. Rather they should be understood as emotional exclamations. Jean-Paul Sartre, another well known personage, advocated subjectivist ethics as a form of moral relativism. For Sartre, social conventions might be an important input for directing one's moral conduct, but only one's individual moral conscience has any real authenticity as a source of moral truth. According to Sartre, all moral statements are true if the person stating them believes them to be true.

Ethical Subjectivism has the apparent advantage of providing a simple explanation of what morality is. "Morality is whatever I think it is!" To the moral agent, one's own ethical opinions often have the internal appearance of objectivity. When expressing moral judgments and opinions, it feels like making, or at least attempting to make, an objective statement. Ethical Subjectivists frequently believe their moral statements to be fact-stating. But this is an artifact of the assertive nature of most ethical statements. They very often have some implied factual implications. But since there is no fact of the matter beyond the moral agent's opinion, such statements cannot be considered as making an objectively true assertion.

The downside of Subjectivist Ethics is that there can be no discourse about disagreements of moral opinions. If you think that A (abortion, say) is right, then A is right for you. If I think that A is wrong, then A is wrong for me. Think back to the Ethical Relativism cointained in Blackburn's joke cited in the Introduction. The difference in attitudes is fundamental. There is no recourse but violence to resolve any conflict, because Subjectivist Ethics offers no way for the parties engaged in ethical debate to resolve their disagreements. If you think that Radical Islamic Terrorists are immoral and evil, that is just your opinion. You have no basis from which to argue that they are doing anything objectively immoral. More to the point, Subjectivist Ethics, by recommending toleration for different moral attitudes, actually generates moral intolerance. Subjectivist Ethics maintains that only my own moral opinions carry moral weight, and yours (if they disagree with mine) carry no weight at all in my moral judgments ("I am right! You are Wrong!"). Subjectivist Ethics thereby classifies your moral opinions as irrelevant to me, and vice versa of course. And if that is the case, then that demotes the importance of your interests and projects in my moral decisions. Is there any better source for mutual intolerance?

Subjectivism in Ethics is like Solipsism in Metaphysics. They both render discussion and argument irrelevant. The entire topic of Philosophy is rendered impotent. Resolving any disagreement in opinion can only be accomplished by violence. If you cannot tolerate the actions resulting from the other person's opinions, your only recourse is to kill him. But science, technology and philosophy are based on the assumption that there are truths out there, independent of our opinions. So Subjectivism is a denial of Reality.

1. Realist versus Anti-Realist Ethics

The first conceptual distinction between the different kinds of ethical theories shown in this chart, is that between the Realist or Cognitivist theories and the Anti-Realist or Non-Cognitivist theories. The Cognitive Error Theories fall between the two extremes. The fundamental difference between the Realist and the Anti-Realist Ethical Theorist is that the Anti-Realist maintains that there are no moral properties or moral facts. The Realist maintains that there are moral properties and moral facts -- although various Realist philosophers hold differing views as to whether these moral facts are in any way similar to "scientific facts".

According to the Anti-Realist, moral language does not employ propositions and hence cannot employ propositions that are true. The Realist, on the other hand, maintains that moral language does employ propositions of which some are true. Another way of putting this is that the Anti-Realist maintains that moral statements are not truth-apt -- are not propositions that can have truth conditions. Whereas the Realist maintains that at least some moral statements do have truth conditions, and at least some of them are true. The Error Theorist sits in the middle -- agreeing with the realist that some moral statements employ propositions that are truth apt, but maintaining that none of these propositions are true.

Before briefly reviewing the arguments presented on each side of the debate over the existence of moral facts, I must adopt two preliminary assumptions. I recognize that these assumptions are contentious for many, but one must start somewhere.

Assumption 1: a "fact" is something which is the case - the state of affairs reported by a true proposition.⁽¹⁾ Equivalently (an important equivalence), a "fact" is whatever it is in the world that renders a proposition true. Facts are "truth-makers" that need not correspond one-to-one with true propositions.⁽²⁾ This understanding of "facts" is intended to be neutral as to their metaphysical and ontological nature. (Although see The Nature of Reality for a discussion of options and their consequences.)

Assumption 2: a "proposition" is the truth-apt sense or meaning of a statement irrespective of the words, sentence form, language, symbology employed, or its assertive status. There can be more than one way in English to say the same "thing". The same "thing" can be said in more than one language. And the same "thing" can be left unsaid, or even un-thought. And again, this understanding of "proposition" is intended to be neutral as to their metaphysical and ontological nature. But by limiting "propositions" to those "things" which can be "truth-apt", I am ruling out a propositional interpretation of such "things" as commands (prescriptions), or emotional expressions, and the like. Propositions are, by this definition, either true or false, irrespective of our ability to determine it.

Given these two preliminary understandings, the debate over whether there are moral facts can be seen as a debate over whether moral language can be understood in terms of propositions, and over whether there exist facts that would render such propositions true. Those who argue that there are moral facts are the Moral Realists. Those who argue that moral language can not be understood in terms of propositions are the Non-Cognitivists (Anti-Realists). And those who argue that there are no true moral propositions (and hence no moral facts) are the Cognitivist Error-Theorists.

I will begin with the arguments presented by the Moral Realists in support of the existence of moral facts, because these arguments are the more intuitively obvious. Common sense "folk" morality is learnt by children in the same manner as they learn their native language. They learn first that it is right or wrong to do certain things. Later they learn why it is right or wrong to do these things. And there are two ways of providing the why. The non-philosophical response is for some particular rule to be cited, with the backing of some Supreme Authority ("Because I said so!!"). The philosophical response is the provision of some non-moral description of the basis of moral rules. From a descriptive point of view, statistics would suggest that most people regard the basis of their moral codes as the dictates or commands of some Supreme Authority⁽³⁾ -- be it a God (like for the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions), or a highly respected thinker like Gautama Buddha (Buddhism), Karl Marx or Vladimir Ulyanov (Marxism/Communism), Confucius (Confucianism), or Laozi (Taoism), or as revealed in sacred writings (like the Vedas and Upanishads of Hinduism). So if the meaning of moral language is determined in some part by how people actually use (or intend) the language, then clearly moral language is a cognitive descriptive exercise that can be captured by propositions. And clearly, some of these propositions are intended to be true.

As pointed out by Peter Glassen⁽⁴⁾:

"That any sentence asserts anything, says anything that is true or false, etc., can be found out in no other way than by finding out what it is that the speaker of the sentence means by it, that is, what it is that he intends to convey by it and what it is that he is characteristically understood as conveying by it."(Pg 69)

"One may, if one pleases, argue that moral judgments cannot be true or false, correct or mistaken; but the fact remains that in ordinary moral discourse these epithets are applied to moral judgments, and their use in this way does not at all seem to be Pickwickian*. This fact surely indicates that in ordinary discourse moral judgments are intended to convey cognitive meaning. How else could we account for it?"(Pg 65)

"If we ask, not 'Do moral judgments assert something?' but, 'Are moral judgments intended to assert something and are they so understood?', we must admit that moral discourse bears every evidence that those who engage in it do intend to assert something when they utter moral judgments and are understood as asserting something."(Pg 71)

Moral Realism thus embraces two basic theses:
(i) moral statements, when literally construed, are literally true or false (independently of whether we can determine it); and
(ii) at least some of these statements are true.⁽⁵⁾

There are many different flavours of Moral Realism, from the non-natural realism of G.E.Moore⁽⁶⁾ to the naturalistic realism of Michael S. Moore⁽⁷⁾. From the Conventionalism of Kekes⁽⁸⁾ to the Contractarian Constructivism of Milo⁽⁹⁾ and Rawls⁽¹⁰⁾. Each variation would provide its own specific understanding of just what would constitute a "moral fact". But they are all in agreement that moral language is cognitively descriptive, can be captured by propositions, of which at least some are true. Hence, for Moral Realists, there are moral facts.

Moral Anti-Realism, or Non-Cognitivism (or sometimes "Non-Descriptivism", "Emotivism" or "Expressivism"), on the other hand, maintains that our "folk" understanding of moral language is grossly in error. Moral assertions, judgments, and so forth are not "things" that can be captured by propositions, and hence are not stuff for which truth-status is apt. Of course, like with the variations of Moral Realism, just how to understand moral language differs according to the variation of non-cognitivism preferred. The classic version of non-cognitivism is Emotivism.⁽¹¹⁾ Emotivism maintains that moral utterances (or thoughts) are not "things" to be captured in propositions but rather function primarily to express emotions, and to elicit the appropriate emotions in others. Emotivism has sometimes been called "The Hurrah!-Boo! Theory" because of its interpretation of positive moral statements as doing something similar to crying "Hurrah!", while negative statements cry "Boo!" The emergence of Logical Positivism and its verifiability criterion of meaning early in the 20th century led some philosophers to conclude that ethical statements, being in their opinion incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless.⁽¹²⁾

Non-Cognitivism owes its origins to the work of David Hume, who argued that reason was impotent, and that the passions alone were the well-springs of actions.⁽¹³⁾ According to Hume, facts and propositions are the business of reason. Whereas moral valuations and moral sentiments are the business of the passions. Hence our moral judgments are not truth-apt. Hume famously raised what is called the "is-ought problem" (also known as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine).⁽¹⁴⁾ He observed that many writers make claims about moral ought based on descriptive statements about what is. However, he argued, it is not at all obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive ones.⁽¹⁵⁾

Buttressing this reasoning was the work of G.E. Moore captured in what he called the "Naturalistic Fallacy".⁽¹⁶⁾ Moore argued that the concept of "moral good" is indefinable because it names a simple, non-natural property. Based on this premise, he claimed that a "Naturalistic Fallacy" is committed whenever a philosopher appeals to a definition of the concept "moral good" in terms of one or more natural properties. While not strictly speaking a non-cognitivist argument, Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy has been combined with Hume's is-ought problem to reinforce the argument that since facts and propositions are about what is, and moral language is about what ought, there is no place for moral facts.

Another famous argument for the non-existence of moral facts is J.L. Mackie's "argument from queerness".⁽¹⁷⁾ Mackie argued that if moral properties (i.e. "goodness") did exist, they would have to be different from the usual kind of property. Mackie's argument is that such moral properties have no discernable effect on the world. Is there any evidence that there is a property of "rightness" that morally right acts have? Most cognitivists argue that the attitudes we have when we consider moral actions and choices is evidence of the existence of the relevant moral property. But Mackie explains these feelings without saying that a moral property was their cause. Mackie presents a two threaded argument for his position. One thread is metaphysical and the other epistemological. (But since the epistemological argument is all about how we come to know anything about the queer metaphysical entities, we can ignore it if we can show that objective moral facts are not as queer as Mackie suggests.) Mark Timmons provides a usefully synopsized reconstruction of Mackie's metaphysical argument⁽¹⁸⁾.

"Moral discourse purports to refer to intrinsically prescriptive properties and facts "that would somehow motivate us or provide us with reasons for action independent of our desires and aversions"(Timmons, pg 50). But such properties and facts do not accord well with the kind of philosophical naturalism that consists of the rejection of any properties or relationships that is not a part of the natural physical world that science investigates. Hence "they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe"(Mackie, pg38).

It is, however, unclear just what Mackie thinks that these objective moral properties might be. On the one hand, he says "Plato's Forms give a dramatic picture of what objective values would have to be"(Mackie, pg 39). But shortly thereafter, says "It may be thought that the argument from queerness is given an unfair start if we thus relate it to what are admittedly among the wilder products of philosophical fancy -- Platonic Forms, non-natural qualities, self-evident relations of fitness, faculties of intuition, and the like."(Mackie, pg 40-41) Mackie seems to think that at least some supervenience relationships required by a supervenience theory of moral realism are not susceptible of further explanation and are thus sui generis.⁽¹⁹⁾ If he is right, that would make such relationships quite unlike any of the usual run-of-the-mill supervenience relationship -- like that of chemistry on physics, or biology on chemistry, for example. It would render them, in this narrow sense "queer" by comparison with the usual suite of supervenience relations. But any theological or utilitarian moral theory would provide an example that would refute Mackie's assumption. So the "argument from queerness" actually begs the question -- it requires as a prerequisite, the assumption either of Platonic realism, or of sui generis moral properties. Neither position is characteristic of contemporary moral realism.

A more recently popular version of non-cognitivism is the Prescriptivism of Carnap and Hare.⁽²⁰⁾ Arguments for prescriptivism focus on the function of normative statements. Prescriptivists argue that factual statements (propositions) and prescriptions are totally different. Rather than simply expressing emotions, Prescriptivism argues that moral statements express "universal prescriptions" or commands. Hence, as commands, moral statements are distinct from assertions, and are not truth-apt. Adjusting statements to reflect reality and adjusting reality based upon statements are contrary uses of language. So factually descriptive statement are a different kind of linguistic entity than are expressions of prescriptions or commands.

Prescriptivism, it is argued, is also supported by actual usage. We utter moral statements as de facto recommendations or commands. The most famous moral ideas are prescriptions: the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, Kant's categorical imperatives. These are not statements that something is the case or not, they are not things that can be true or false.

Different variations of non-cognitivist ethical theories would provide their own specific understanding of just how to understand moral language. But they are all in agreement that moral language is not in any literal sense cognitively descriptive. Even where they admit that moral language can be captured by propositions, they would argue that no such moral propositions are true. Hence there are no moral facts.

The Flaws of Non-Cognitivist Morality

There are three key flaws that infect non-cognitivist moral theories. Not all of the many non-cognitivist variations are infected by all three flaws, however. Some of these variations have been specifically constructed to avoid one or more of them. But overall, as a class, the three flaws apply, and they indicate that Non-Cognitivist Morality is not likely to actually reflect the meaning that most people invest into their moral language. These three flaws are

(1) As Peter Glassen pointed out (as quoted above), except for non-cognitivist philosophers in their classrooms, people simply do not use or understand moral language in the way that non-cognitivist theories suggest they do. Even non-cognitivist philosophers, when not in their classrooms, use and understand moral discourse as if "those who engage in it do intend to assert something when they utter moral judgments and are understood as asserting something". So whatever it is that non-cognitivist moral philosophers are talking about, it is not kind of moral and ethical language used and understood by the rest of us.

(2) The non-cognitivist analysis of moral propositions suffers from what is called the "Imbedding Problem"⁽²¹⁾ Consider the following example from Peter Geach⁽²²⁾:

(P1) If tormenting the cat is bad, getting your little brother to do it is bad
(P2) Tormenting the cat is bad.
(C) Ergo, getting your little brother to torment the cat is bad.

This looks like the simple logical structure of a material conditional (p→q; p; ergo q.). But if the non-cognitivists are right, then the moral premise "tormenting the cat is bad" has to be translated into "Boo! to tormenting the cat." And such a statement is not truth-apt. So Geach's example must be understood as:

(P1) If Boo! to tormenting the cat, then Boo! to getting your little brother to do it.
(P2) Boo! to tormenting the cat.
(C) Ergo, Boo! to getting your little brother to torment the cat.

This structure cannot be understood as a simple material conditional. Non-Cognitivists have great difficulty explaining the meaning of the logic involved here, and explaining the derivation of the concluding statement. This is just one simple example of the problem because there are many circumstances where apparently meaningful moral propositions are imbedded within more complex sentences. And looking at general run-of-the-mill moral discussions, these more complex sentences do appear be understood and invested with comprehensible meaning. Non-Cognitivists have difficulty in explaining this apparent meaning.

(3) The non-cognitivist analysis of moral language necessarily ignores the external causes of the posited emotional and prescriptive attitudes and reactions -- the "Deep Genesis Challenge". If you exclaim that "tormenting the cat is bad", then there must be something that inspired your "Boo!" reaction to tormenting the cat. If you can point to something that inspired your reaction, then you are pointing to some moral facts -- invalidating the non-cognitivist thesis. If, for example, you point to the similar reactions of other people in your social circle, then you are pointing to the moral fact that other people also think that tormenting the cat is bad. This puts you firmly into the Social Convention box of Realist theories. If you cannot point to anything that inspired your reaction, then you have to accept the notion that your emotional reactions are arbitrary and not relevant to the circumstances to which they are being applied. If, on the other hand, there is some sort of consistent connection between a situation and your Hurrah! or Boo! reaction, then you are back to joining the Realists in admitting the existence of moral facts.

Obviously, as evidenced by the chart shown above and the flaws I have identified in the Non-Cognitivist theories, it is the Realist Theories of Ethics that will occupy the remainder of this discussion. Evolutionary Pragmatism is a Realist Theory of Ethics. And to explain it (and understand it) properly it will be advisable to explore the faults of the various other competing theories.

Here are some additional essays pertinent to the question of the nature of "moral facts"
Are there moral facts? Critically Assess the View that Moral Properties are Best Understood as like Secondary Qualities such as Colours and Tastes.
"If ethics is objective, then there should be widespread ethical agreement. But there isn't widespread ethical agreement. Therefore, ethics is not objective." Discuss.
'If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe' (Mackie). Discuss
What would it be for morality to be objective?

2. Social versus Personal Ethics

The second conceptual distinction between the different kinds of ethical theories shown in this chart, is that between the Social conception of Ethics and the Personal conception of Ethics. (Obviously, this conceptual distinction applies only to the Realist ethical theories.) When studying the philosophical literature available on the subject of ethics, one of the more remarkable things that surfaces after a while, is that there are two different conceptions of morality being employed. And almost no one acknowledges that fact. So a lot of what passes for philosophical argument in the literature on ethics, is one philosopher talking past another because they are coming at the discussion with different concepts of morality.

The relationship between morality and self-interest is an enduring one in the history of philosophy. Whether acknowledged explicitly or not, the disctinction is at the center of disagreements between moral theories. It goes back to Plato's Republic⁽²³⁾. Plato believed that morality must be based on objective truth and must be reconciled with self-interest. In the Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus debate the nature of justice (the moral thing to do). Thrasymachus claims that self-interest supports injustice, while Socrates argues that justice is ultimately in the interest of the individual. This is the first documented occurance of the Socratic or Personal conception of ethics. It takes as its starting point the question "How ought I to live?" (See Plato's Gorgias, 500c; Republic, 344e. See also especially Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics⁽²⁴⁾.) Answering this question in any depth will, of course, require one to consider how one will behave toward other people. But this conception of morality extends beyond our interactions with other people, to every significant aspect of our lives. Thus, contra the quote below from Paul Bloomfield, someone stranded alone on a desert island does face moral issues. The Socratic or Personal conception of morality does not distinguish between moral and prudential motivations. They are one and the same.

Kant, however, claims that morality ought to be followed anyway even if it is not in a person's interest.⁽²⁵⁾ This Kantian conception, is what I will call the Social or Altruistic conception of morality. It is a sense of morality that maintains that ethical principles are impartial and universal. In much of the modern philosophical literature on Ethics, it is the Kantian / Social / Altruistic conception of moral reasoning that seems to be the current standard understanding. As for example, these particular quotes:

"Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal." Bernard Gert⁽²⁶⁾

"It begins with the question of how one ought to behave toward others. Morality is seen as having a final authority over our lives and the interests of others play a necessary role in the decision procedures we ought to use. Where the interests of others are not at issue, morality does not come into play: there is no morality for an agent stranded alone on a desert island. Thus, on such a view, morality and justice, understood loosely to encompass all fair dealings between people, are often seen to have the same scope. Typically, on this conception, morality requires impartiality, such that agents must not see their own interests, or the interests of their families, communities, etc., as having any special standing whatsoever in the decision procedure that determines what ought to be done." Paul Bloomfield⁽²⁷⁾

"A Central feature of morality is the moral principle. We have already noted that moral principles are practical guides to action that differ from legal statutes, rules of etiquette, and even religious rules. We must say a word about the features of moral principles. Although there is no universal agreement on which traits a moral principle must process, the following traits have received widespread attention: (1) prescriptivity, (2) universalizability, (3) overridingness, (4) publicity, (5) practicability." Louis Pojman(28.1)

It is clear that Bernard Gert conceives of morality in the Social or Altruistic (Kantian) mold -- with the impartial goal of minimizing "evil or harm" in its universal manifestation. Ethical behavior by a moral agent is behavior that affects others, and ethical recommendations are arrived at irrespective of the agent's own self-interests. Likewise, Paul Bloomfield is characterizing the "standard conception" of morality as Kantian and Altruistic in nature. And he emphasizes the impartiality condition that disallows any special consideration for the self-interests of the moral agent. Sentiments echoed by Louis Pojman.

The primary beneficiary of Social or Altruistic Morality is the Other -- society in general, or other individuals, as long as it is not the moral actor. Although the moral actor may benefit from being moral, it is not the primary motivation for being moral. To use Kant's famous example -- if a shopkeeper does not cheat her customers because she thinks it is in her own best interests to be honest, then she is not acting morally. But if she does not cheat her customers because she understands that being honest is her duty, then she is acting morally. Even though the end result of both motivations is the same. Those with a Social or Altruistic conception of morality separate the motivations for behavior into "moral" and "prudential" reasons. Prudential reasons are those that appeal to self-interest (it being readily assumed by all parties that self-interest is inherently motivating). Moral reasons are not prudential reasons. The Altruistic or Social conception of morality pointedly highlights the question "Why Be Moral?" Answering this question with a truly motivating answer is a major challenge for any theory of ethics from the Altruistic conception. Especially since any prudential reason is ruled out-of-court from the start.

Another dimension of this distinction between the Social or Altruistic conception of morality and the Socratic or Personal conception of morality, is the distinction between the Agent-Neutral versus the Agent-Relative conception of morals. Many philosophers believe that moral and ethical rules and principles should be impartial across moral agents -- in other worlds, should be "agent-neutral". According to this assumption, moral rules ought to apply equally to all. There should be no special consideration for the acting moral agent. Kant's concept of the "Categorical Imperative" is the arch-type of this principle. Many philosophers would agree with Kant, that moral principles ought to be Universalizable and Impartial. Because Deontological moral theories are all about absolute agent-neutral rules of behavior, Deontological moral theories are all more or less Kantian in this respect.

The degree to which this attitude is ingrained in, and unquestioned by many moral philosophers, is evidenced by the way that Samuel Scheffler condemns all Consequentialist moral theories by using the attributes of traditional act Utilitarianism.(28.2)

"Act-consequentialism is not the only kind of consequentialism; other variants include rule-consequentialism and motive-consequentialism. These views typically differ somewhat from act-consequentialism in what they require of agents, though they share with act-consequentialism the feature of ranking overall states of affairs impersonally, and the general idea that the best states of affairs are somehow to be promoted."(28.2, Pg: 2)

As you can see, Scheffler is assuming here that all forms of Consequentialist Morality includes the Kantian proviso of impartiality and universalizability. But of course, in actual fact, whether a particular form of Consequentialist or even Utilitarian morality does include this Kantian assumption depends critically on what the particular theory maintains should be maximized.

In contrast to the Agent-Neutral conception of Impartiality is the Agent-Relative conception held most obviously by those of the Virtue Ethics school of morality. The various permutations of Virtue Ethics theory maintain that the aim of morality is the achievement of "The Good Life" on the part of the moral agent. So what matters is the agent-relative moral status of the individual agent. But there are some agent-relative versions of Consequentialist morality. Traditional Utilitarianism, for example, maintains that an act is recommended only if it maximizes overall "utility". Such a theory is, of course, agent-neutral (impartial). This means that it does not readily accommodate various agent-relative features of common sense morality, such as agent-centered options and agent-centered constraints. Consider the common sense constraint against murder. This constraint is agent-relative because it constrains the options available for the agent regardless of how it affects the overall maximization of "utility". Rule-Utilitarianism, in contrast, is an agent-relative theory because it maintains that the agent has the moral aim of ensuring that her own behavior adheres to the rules, regardless of the impacts on overall "utility". Egoism, as another example, is also an agent-relative theory since it maintains that an act is recommended only if it maximizes the agent's own "utility".

In the following discussions of particular Ethical theories, you are going to notice that different theories land on one side or the other of these Social versus Personal and Agent-Neutral versus Agent-Relative divides. It all comes down to how these particular theories actually answer the challenge of "Why Be Moral?" If they appeal to self-interest, they land on the Personal side of the divide. If they offer another reason, they land on the Social side of the divide. If they are concerned with the individual agent's welfare, they land on the Agent-Relative side of the divide. If not, then they land on the Agent-Neutral side of the divide.

3. Deontological versus Consequentialist versus Virtue Ethics

Which brings us to the third conceptual distinction between the different kinds of ethical theories. (Obviously again, this conceptual distinction applies only to the Realist ethical theories.) It distinguishes between what are called teleological, or consequentialist theories, and what are called deontological, or authoritative command, or non-consequentialist theories. The set of theories called Virtue Ethics sits alone to one side of this central distinction. It is necessary to point out that moral judgments are made about those actions that involve choice. It is only when people have possible alternatives to choose between that we conclude that their actions are either morally good or morally bad. This level of distinction between Realist ethical theories is based on the difference between standards of behavior and habits of character. Deontological and Consequentialist ethical theories are about standards of behavior. Virtue ethics theories are about habits of character.

When we form a moral judgment, we are employing ethical standards -- principles against which we compare what we see, do, or plan to do, in order to form a moral conclusion. Such judgments might be about particular conduct, which includes a person's actions, or it might be about a person's character, which includes their attitudes and beliefs. One of the most important characteristics of moral judgments is that they express our values. Not all expressions of values are also moral judgments, but all moral judgments do express something about what we value. Thus, understanding morality requires investigating what people value and why.

There are two ways to justify moral beliefs and moral judgments. One is to stand on principle. This is deontological ethics. Standing on principle is supposed to be independent of factual belief or rational analysis. According to deontological ethics, it does not matter whether your moral position will result ultimately in good or bad outcomes for you or the world at large. According to deontological ethics, a moral stand is justified by principled beliefs about the moral value of the act rather than any descriptive beliefs about its consequences. For Deontological Ethics, it is the act that possesses Moral Value. What separates the different Deontological theories is the how the set of "good" acts are chosen.

The other way to justify moral beliefs and judgments is to focus on consequences. Consequentialism is a kind of rational moral calculus. A moral position or judgment is justified on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. Crucial to such analyses are factual beliefs about the likely consequences to be expected. The only ethical principle involved is that the morality of acts should be based on an analysis of consequences. For Consequentialist Ethics, it is the consequences of acts that possess Moral Value. Once that consequentialist position is adopted, moral evaluations are simply a matter of the empirical facts of the situation. What separates the different Consequentialist theories is the particular choice of criteria for identifying "good" consequences.

Virtue Ethics, on the other hand, is not about justifying moral beliefs or moral judgements. Virtue Ethics groups theories that emphasize the role of character and virtuous motivation rather than either doing one's duty (deontology) or acting in order to bring about good consequences (consequentialism). A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: "Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation."⁽²⁹⁾.

Different Kinds of Ethics

So with the preliminaries dealt with, let us now delve into the particulars of the various ethical theories outlined in the chart above.
Deontological Ethics
(i) Divine Command Ethics
(ii) Natural Law Ethics
(iii) Kant's Categorical Imperative
(iv) Intuitionist Ethics
(v) Social Conventionalism
(vi) Social Contractualism
Consequentialist Ethics
Social Ethics
(i) Classic Utilitarianism
(ii) Welfare Utilitarianism

Personal Ethics
(i) Ethical Egoism
(ii) Eudemonism
(iii) Evolutionary Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Summary

An individual can deal with the ebb and flow of daily life (the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune⁽³⁰⁾) in only three possible ways -

You can sit there and do nothing, waiting for and taking whatever lumps the flow of events might bestow upon you -- the life strategy typical of plants and couch potatoes;

You can act at random, without thought for the consequences, and hope for the best (however you choose to understand "best") -- the life strategy typical of "non-rational" animals, and those whose life strategy is to "go with the flow"; or

You can try to understand and predict (locally, and however approximately) the flow of events and choose to act in ways that appear to you to most likely result in "better" consequences (however you choose to understand "better") -- the life strategy typical of "rational" animals (and Hamlet⁽³⁰⁾).

All intentional (as opposed to accidental or unconscious) choice, at whatever level of discourse, is predicated on the assumption that one alternative is "better" than another - on some scale of valuation. The universal assumption that underlies all of the various theories of Ethics is that "Life will be Better" if you choose the "right thing to do". "Ethics" is the study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral judgments or choices to be made by a person. A person's "ethics" or "morals" consists of those rules, habits and/or standards of behavior or character that the individual uses to determine the right choices, the virtuous alternatives, and the righteous behaviours. Those rules, habits and standards are what the individual uses to evaluate and choose the alternatives they think are most likely to result in "better" consequences, however they choose to understand "better".

What should I do (now)? I should do what I ought to do!

And what ought I do ? I should seek out that course of action that would be for the best.

And how can I determine which of the alternatives I can envision is for the best?

I must appeal to my conception of "Good" or "Right" to evaluate the desirability of the alternatives. And I must appeal to my catalog of ethical pre-judgments for rules-of-thumb or guidelines that may apply to simplify or guide or dictate my choices.

"Ethics" answers the question - "What should I do now?" or "What is the right thing to do?"
The philosophical disagreements arise over -
Whose life will be better ?
Better how?
Better when ?
What do you mean by "better"?,
How do you determine "better" ?
What, particularly, is the "right thing to do"?

Despite the summary chart shown above, and the accompaning series of essays, the history of philosophical ethics reveals twenty-four fundamentally different approaches to the notion of Ethics. And as far as I can tell from a non-exhaustive search of the philosophical literature, just about every one of these possibilities has been supported by one philosopher or another. How you answer these three key questions, will place you in one of the 24 different conceptions of Ethics, and in one of the boxes on the chart above.

When you ask most (non-philosopher) people " How do you determine which is the better alternative?" their answer will always fall into one of:-
1. Whatever action best adheres to the established Rules. (Deontology)
2. Whatever action best achieves the desired consequences. (Consequentialism)
3. Whatever action best exemplifies a high moral character. (Virtue Ethics)

When you ask " Whose life will be better if you do the right / ethical / moral thing?" their answers will reveal two fundamentally different notions of the intended beneficiary of Ethical/Moral behavior:-
1. My life will be better if I do the right thing. (A Personal conception of Morality)
2. Everybody else's life will be better if I do the right thing. (A Social / Kantian / Altruistic conception of Morality)

When you ask "What do you mean by life being better? Better How?" their answers will reveal two fundamentally different scales of measurement according to which a "better" life is conceived:-
1. Spiritual Well-Being (The religious scale of measure.)
2. Material Well-Being / Standard of Living (You will be happier, more content, more successful, wiser, better, or something of the sort that can be approximated by economic measures of a standard of living.)

And when you ask " Where and When will life be better?" their answers will reveal two fundamentally different notions of the time and place where things will be better if you do the right / ethical / moral thing:-
· 1. The Here and Now (The quality of life will improve in the here and now, either spiritually or materially.)
· 2. The There and Then (The Heaven and Hell approach.)

For those who conceive of "Ethics" and "Morality" from the basis of one of these 24 notions, theirs is the one and only "obvious" source of true and right Ethics. The other twenty-three notions are obviously wrong, invalid, non-existent or illogical (and sometimes heretical and sinful).

Regrettably, it is impossible for rational argument to shift an individual's fundamental notion of Ethics. Logic cannot be persuasive in this realm, because the underlying premises of the 24 different notions are quite incommensurate. A discussion of any ethical topic, including Ethics itself, will quickly degenerate to emotionalism. And, if allowed to progress too far, inevitably into violence.

[Home] [Next]

Footnotes

*Pickwikian -- "(of words or ideas) meant or understood in a sense different from the apparent or usual one." [ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pickwickian].

(1) Wikipedia contributors; "Fact." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. URL=< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact>

(2) See for example: Frege, Gottlob; "The thought: a logical inquiry" in P.F. Strawson (ed.) Philosophical Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1967);
Mellor, D.H.; The Facts of Causation (London:Routledge 1995);
Austin, J.L.; "Unfair to Facts" in Austin, Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1961);
Davidson, Donald; "True to the Facts" in Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984).

(3) Congress of World and Traditional Religions, URL=< http://www.religions-congress.org/content/view/130/35/lang,english/>

(4) Glassen, Peter; "The Cognitivity of Moral Judgments" in Mind 68, No 269 (Jan 1959), Pgs 57-72.

(5) Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey; Essays on Moral Realism, Cornell University Press, Cornell, New York, 1988. ISBN: 0-8014-9541-5. Pg 5.

(6) Moore, G.E.M.; Principia Ethica, 1903. URL=< http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica>.

(10) Rawls, John; A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005, ISBN 978-0674017726.

(11) See for example: Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals;
Carnap Philosophy and Logical Syntax, 1937;
Stevenson, Ethics and Language, 1944;
Ayer, Language Truth and Logic, 1952.

(12) Wikipedia contributors; "Emotivism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. URL=< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism>.

Here also are Carnap and Ayer -
"Most philosophers have been deceived [by the seeming fact that moral judgments often take the form of an assertive proposition] into thinking that a value statement is really an assertive proposition, and must be either true or false. . . . But actually a value statement is nothing else than a command in a misleading grammatical form . . . it is neither true nor false. It does not assert anything and can neither be proved nor disproved." Carnap, Rudolf; Philosophy and Logical Syntax, Psyche Miniatures, General Series no. 70 as quoted in Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London,1935), Pg 24-25.
"[Moral judgments] have no objective validity whatsoever. If a sentence makes no statement at all, there is obviously no sense in asking whether what it says is true or false. And we have seen that sentences which simply express moral judgments do not say anything. They are pure expressions of feeling . . . ." Ayer, A.J.; Language, Truth and Logic, Dover Publications, New York, New York, 1952. Pg 108.

(14) Wikipedia contributors. "Is--ought problem." in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. URL=< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem>.

(15) "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it." [Hume, David; A Treatise of Human Nature. Book III, Part I, Section I, London: John Noon. p. 469.

(17) Mackie, J.L.; Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Pelican Books, New York, New York, 1977. ISBN 0-14-013558-8.

(18) Timmons, Mark; Morality without Foundations: A Defense of Ethical Contextualism, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, 1999. ISBN: 019511731X.

(19) Shepski, Lee; "The Vanishing Argument from Queerness" in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 86, No 3 (2008), Pg 371-387.

(20) See for example: Carnap, Philosophy and Logical Syntax, 1937. Hare, The Language of Morals, 1952.

(22) Geach, P.T.; "Assertion" in Philosophical Review, Vol 74 (1965):Pg 463.

(23) Plato; The Republic. (trans.) B. Jowett; Oxford University Press, London England. 1871-1931. URL=< http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/plato-dialogues-vol-3-republic-timaeus-critias#lf0131-03_head_001>.

(24) Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Translated and introduced by David Ross, revised by J.L. Ackrill and J.O. Urmson;Oxford University Press,Oxford,England. 1980.ISBN 0-19-283407-x

(25) Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York. 2005. ISBN 0-486-44309-4.

(26) Gert, Bernard, Morality: Its Nature and Justification, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

(27) Bloomfield, Paul (Ed.); Morality and Self-Interest, Oxford University Press, new York, New York, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-530585-2.

(28.1) Pojman, Louis P. & Fieser, James; Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (7th Ed.), Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston, Mass. 2012. ISBN 978-1-111-29817-3.

(28.2) Scheffler, Samuel; The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. 1982 ISBN 0-19-823511-9.

(29) Quine, W.V.O.; "On the Nature of Moral Virtues" in Critical Inquiry, Vol 5 No 3 (Spring, 1979), URL=< http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342996>. Pp 471-480]

(30) Shakespeare; Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1, URL=< http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=hamlet&Act=3&Scene=1&Scope=scene>.
Hamlet:"To be, or not to be- that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an individual, you can choose to deal with the ebb and flow of daily life in only three possible ways - You can sit there and do nothing, waiting for and taking whatever lumps and favours the flow of events might bestow upon you -- the life strategy typical

# data[].attributes.body
Types of Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Types of Ethics, Personal Ethics, Social Ethics, Religious Ethics, Business Ethics

# data[].attributes.body
Video on the research to Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People Matter: The Future of Research Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Future of Research is being decided now! While we are fortunate to have a robust system of protections in place that help assure research will provide more benefit than harm, the regulations that guide research with human participants have been in place for 40 years.

# data[].attributes.body
Video on how to manipulate people so they will believe you (Persuasion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Mental Life Hacks ▐ Real Life Jedi Mind Tricks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 4  (slightly unethical) tricks on how to persuade anyone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sources for scientific journals are provided below. New videos come out every Thursday so subscribe for more videos. Visit my Facebook page for more bite sized tips and psychology information https://www.facebook.com/BiteSizePsych Also, if you like the music behind it, you should check out the musician behind it.

# data[].attributes.body
Unethical examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unethical behavior is an action that falls outside of what is considered morally right or proper for a person, a profession or an industry. Individuals can behave unethically, as can businesses, professionals and politicians.

Unethical Behavior Among Individuals

Lying to your spouse about how much money you spent.

Lying to your parents about where you were for the evening.

Stealing money from the petty cash drawer at work.

Lying on your resume in order to get a job.

Talking about a friend behind his back.

Taking credit for work you did not do.

Cheating on a school paper by copying it off the Internet.

Taking $20.00 out of your friend's wallet when he is sleeping.

Using your position of power at work to sexually harass someone.

Selling a house and not disclosing known defects to the buyers.

Selling a car and lying about the vehicle's accident history.

Unethical Behavior Among Businesses

Dumping pollutants into the water supply rather than cleaning up the pollution properly.

Releasing toxins into the air in levels above what is permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Coercing an injured worker not to report a work injury to workers' compensation by threatening him with the loss of a job or benefits.

Refusing to give an employee a final paycheck for hours worked after the employee leaves the company.

Not paying an employee for all of the hours worked.

Incorrectly classifying an employee as an independent contractor and not as an employee in order to reduce payroll taxes and avoid purchasing unemployment and workers' compensation insurance.

Engaging in price fixing to force smaller competitors out of business.

Using bait and switch or false advertising tactics to lure customers in or convince them to buy a product.

Rolling back the odometer on a vehicle that is for sale.

Refusing to honor a warranty claim on a defective product.

Unethical Behavior by Professionals

Doctors, dentists and lawyers dating their clients.

Not telling a patient his true diagnosis because the physician didn't know the details of the diagnosis.

A dentist preforms unnecessary procedures on a patient in order to receive the insurance payment.

Using a patient as a teaching tool for students for long periods of time without the permission of the patient or patient's family.

A lawyer will not return money or provide a which was being held for a client.

A lawyer represents parties on both sides of a legal transaction.

Unethical Behavior Among Politicians and the Government

Using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target groups that you do not like by auditing those groups or refusing to give them tax exempt status.

Obtaining private tax information about your political opponents from the Internal Revenue Service and using that information in a campaign.

Knowingly telling lies about your own political position or about the political position of your opponent just to get elected.

Accepting excess campaign contributions that violate campaign finance laws.

Using money that was donated to your campaign for personal, non-approved expenses.

Using your position of power to coerce lobbyists into buying expensive gifts for you and for your wife.

Secretly spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment and lying about the spying that is going on.

Using your position of power to close traffic lanes in order to intentionally create a traffic jam that affects residents of a city because residents in that city are not likely to vote for you in an election.

These are just some of the many different examples of unethical behavior that could occur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unethical behavior is an action that falls outside of what is considered morally right or proper for a person, a profession or an industry. Individuals can behave unethically, as can businesses, professionals and politicians. Lying to your spouse about how much money you spent. Lying to your parents about where you were for the evening.

# data[].attributes.body
Quotes regarding Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." - Potter Stewart

# data[].attributes.body
Most Ethical companies in 2O17

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From sexual harassment allegations at Fox News to widespread fraud at Wells Fargo, we saw no shortage of corporate scandals in 2016. But year after year, many firms also show a strong moral compass. This week Ethisphere launched its annual list of the world's most ethical companies. Now in its 11th edition, the list isn't a ranking, but includes 124 companies deemed to be the most ethical. To see the full set, view the bottom of this post.

To be considered for the list, a company must answer a 200-question, exceedingly detailed survey, explaining how it addresses ethics in the normal course of business. Ethisphere independently verifies those responses with outside sources like SEC filings and by asking companies for supporting documentation. And Ethisphere's analysts research companies' reputation, history of litigation and ethical track record.

There's also an application fee-firms with less than $500 million in revenue must pay $1,000 to apply for a spot on the list. Larger firms shell out $1,500. Ethisphere is a private company that makes money through products and services like conferences, event sponsorships, subscriptions and advertising. It says its business relationships with its clients have no impact on whether they make the list.

Through its ethics survey, Ethisphere evaluates firms on five criteria, which roll up into a single Ethics Quotient (EQ) score. The first and most important topic is a company's ethics and compliance program, which accounts for 35% of the EQ. Firms must answer questions like whether they track gifts received by employees and what resources they offer employees for reporting misconduct.

Ethisphere observed an interesting trend in the data in 2016: more companies disclosed information about misconduct to their own employees, telling them how many complaints were filed and what was done about it. Previously, firms tended to keep such matters confidential, says Michael Byrne, Ethisphere's general counsel. "Essential to an effective compliance program is people feeling comfortable expressing a concern ... One of the best ways to [do that] is to shine a light on it."

The second factor in the ethical list scoring, accounting for 20% of the EQ, gauges whether ethics are embedded into a company's culture from top to bottom. The third element, corporate citizenship and responsibility, includes questions about what methods companies use to measure their environmental impact.

Corporate governance is the fourth criterion. Ethisphere's survey asks whether a company's CEO and board-chair roles are held by separate people. This year, Ethisphere also placed an increased focus on diversity in board and leadership positions.

The final element is leadership, innovation and reputation. Ethisphere asks if companies have been named to top business lists, such as Forbes' own Most Trustworthy Companies , and whether its executives have spoken at high-profile conferences like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Of the 124 firms on this year's list, 13 have made the cut every single year, including: Aflac, Deere & Company, Ecolab, Fluor, GE, International Paper, Kao Corporation, Milliken and Company, PepsiCo, Starbucks, Texas Instruments, UPS and Xerox.

Eight firms on the list are newcomers: Brightstar, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Grupo Bimbo, Praxair, Republic Services, RTI International and VF Corporation.
World's Most Ethical Companies - Full List

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From sexual harassment allegations at Fox News to widespread fraud at Wells Fargo, we saw no shortage of corporate scandals in 2016. But year after year, many firms also show a strong moral compass. This week Ethisphere launched its annual list of the world's most ethical companies.

# data[].attributes.body
People vandalize a local Colorado Springs park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Venezia Park in Briargate is the first new park to open in the City of Colorado Springs in more than a decade and already vandals have caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage. In fact, the parks and recreation department is asking City Council for an additional $450,000 to buy surveillance cameras to try and catch the criminals in the act.

Photos of some the graffiti specifically show red and yellow spray paint with anarchy logos and the words "antifa" and "left solida" on tables, walls and fireplaces. That graffiti has since been removed, but it cost the community at least $80,000 to repair or replace damaged items.

That figure was a surprise to parents who spent Friday afternoon playing at the park with their children.

"That's actually very surprising," Josh Inskeep said. "I'll be honest with you, I didn't know that and I can't believe it."

"I'm surprised that there would be any at all, especially given the area," added Erik Konig. "I'm surprised they would be any vandalizing or causing destruction at all."

A grand opening celebration was held at the park on July 8 and it has quickly become one of the most popular spots in City.

"I love it, I think it's great for the kids," Inskeep said.

"It's nice, I mean it's beautiful obviously," said Konig.

Kurt Schroeder, the park maintenance and operations manager, said vandalism occurs at all city parks. But for some reason, Venezia has been hit especially hard. The damage started even before the park opened.

"Even through construction, somebody or some people were getting in there and tagging the site," Schroeder said. "We had copper stolen, we had the contractors equipment vandalized."

The cameras they have in mind are similar to the system currently in place downtown which provide a live feed direct to the police department.

"That signal will be sent into the police operations center can be monitored so that any kind of mischief that occurs can be picked up just as quickly as possible and hopefully eliminated."

In the meantime, Schroeder said they have requested officers to come by and keep an eye on things whenever possible. Schroeder hopes the presence of squad cars will keep even more valuable park installations from being damaged.

"It's got so many really cool amenities that if they are damaged, it's not going to be inexpensive to repair or replace."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vandals do $80K in damage at new Colorado Springs park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Venezia Park in Briargate is the first new park to open in the City of Colorado Springs in more than a decade and already vandals have caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage. In fact, the parks and recreation department is asking City Council for an additional $450,000 to buy surveillance cameras to try and catch the criminals in the act.

# data[].attributes.body
Individual robs Colorado Springs bank

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
COLORADO SPRINGS - A sword-wielding man suspected of robbing a Colorado Springs bank is in custody after a standoff with police in a nearby apartment building.

Colorado Springs police Lt. Howard Black says 39-year-old Anthony Hammond faces an aggravated robbery charge after the Tuesday robbery.

Black says the suspect entered the bank with a sword and demanded money from a teller, then fled on foot. Witnesses directed responding officers to the apartment building, where the man barricaded himself inside an apartment. He eventually surrendered.

Black says Hammond also faces charges in connection with a Dec. 12 robbery of a nearby grocery store. Cash from Tuesday's robbery and items from the grocery store robbery were found in the apartment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sword-wielding robbery suspect arrested in Colorado Springs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COLORADO SPRINGS - A sword-wielding man suspected of robbing a Colorado Springs bank is in custody after a standoff with police in a nearby apartment building. Colorado Springs police Lt. Howard Black says 39-year-old Anthony Hammond faces an aggravated robbery charge after the Tuesday robbery.

# data[].attributes.body
Putting your life at risk to help save others is very courageous and is ethical. It shows you have compassion and consideration for others

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Restoring Faith in Humanity #2 REAL LIFE HEROES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Be a Hero! Please watch: "REAL LIFE HEROES 2017 #45 Restoring Faith in Humanity" https://youtu.be/nq89xudnHCg -~-~~-~~~-~~-~- "Faith in Humanity Restored" - Part 2 by REAL LIFE HEROES channel: http://rlhtv.com/ We continue to honor everyday heroes and their remarkable contributions to the society.

# data[].attributes.body
You can even save lives at a young age. You can be ethical and want to help out at any age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Heroic Kids Who Came to the Rescue | ABC News Remix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inspired by the super twin who saved his brother beneath a fallen dresser - here are 10 kids who came to the rescue to save their friends and family!

# data[].attributes.body
Neighbors being evil and unethical to other neighbors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our Matt Gutman went on the trail to investigate and confront a Florida man who allegedly harassed his neighbors with eggs, rocks and fire. These neighbor are ruining their peers lives one day at time. From Deer carcasses in the yard, fires in the lawn, to SWAT teams making house calls these folks have taken bad neighbor to new heights.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics include having integrity. So, one must never steal. Even if your alone in a room with other people's belongings, its still not okay to steal. Stealing is wrong and it can have some serious consequences. These consequences can be legal or even consequences regarding your relationship with others.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important to be honest with yourself and with others.If you're honest with yourself, you just live a healthier lifestyle. If you're honest with others, they are more likely to respect you, trust you and feel comfortable around you. You need to be honest even if you have done something wrong. It's easier for people to forgive you if you're straight up unlike if you lie and just are constantly dishonest.

# data[].attributes.body
When you respect others, it's a peaceful, positive environment. You should always respect others for how they look, how they act, their interest, hobbies, and even their overall existence. You don't want people to feel down and sad because you feel the need to be rude and say something nasty. You should respect everyone even if you don't accept their actions or disagree with them on a certain topic

# data[].attributes.body
I love when people give back to their communities and help out people in need.When people participate in these charitable acts, it shows that there is still faith in humanity. We all need to be helpful, especially the homeless population. No one deserves to not have proper shelter, food, and hygiene.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Giving $100 to Homeless People  | Give Back Films

# data[].attributes.body
It's always a nice thing to pay it forward. It's happened to me a couple of times when I've been at a drive-thru. It makes you feel good and it shows that people are looking out for others and want to just do a good deed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
INSPIRED BY MICHAEL WAHBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSnj64JS96hrpIIRNbqvncA His Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1jIoT_MnE Kindness goes a long way. Do something kind for someone and be the change you want to see in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Another good deed that just makes people's day. Some people go to the grocery store and have to limit the amount of items they need to buy because they don't have that much money. It's so kind when you see others giving money to others to help them pay for necessities like groceries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Muslim Paying For People's Groceries on Thanksgiving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Muslim Paying For People's Groceries on Thanksgiving!! The quote inside the card is by Prophet Muhammed and it says 'Exchange gifts, it will increase your love for one another.' Special thanks to Farheen for making the cards. We hope you enjoy watching this video as much as we did filming it.