This document outlines David Batchelor's ethics seminar, discussing several theories of ethics including: - Moral reasoning and whether people should use reason to support value judgments. - Moral relativism and whether there are universal values or if values differ based on society and environment. - Self-interest theory, which argues humans are always selfish due to evolutionary instincts to survive and reproduce. - Utilitarianism, which says the moral principle is to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. The document poses discussion questions about each theory.

1. David Batchelor
October 13, 2010
Period 4, Senior Seminar
Mr. Clover
Ethics Seminar Outline
Ethics- A branch of thinking that questions our morals that are right and wrong, and
good and bad.
Moral Reasoning
• Deciding whether something is moral through the use of reasoning
• Using reason to support ones value judgments
• Ex: War is acceptable/ War is unacceptable
Do you think that people should use reason to support their value judgments, or
should people be free to state whatever they want?
Is this an accurate WOK as a way to gain knowledge? Why?
Moral Principles
• When people argue about ethics, we usually appeal to a certain moral principle
to justify that ethic.
• Ex: Abortion is wrong, Edna had an abortion, and therefore what Edna did
was wrong.
• This is a way to reason about moral issues
Do you think that moral principals are accurate in their answers? If yes why? If not
why?
Does this type of reasoning make a reasonable WOK?
Moral Relativism
• According to moral relativism, our values are influenced by the environment
and the society that we live in and that there are no “universal” values.
• Ex: some people drive on the left side of the road, and other countries the
right. Some religions allow the consumption of pork, other religions prohibit
it. Some women can’t drive in their country, others can.

2. • These are examples of different values because of the different societies that
people live in.
Do you think that there are no universal values as a result of moral relativism?
Why?
Self Interest Theory
• According to this theory, human beings are always selfish.
• This is seen as the opposite of moral behavior so that even if there are moral
values, we will never live up to them because we are always selfish.
To what extent do you believe in this?
• There are four types of arguments for the self interest theory however we will
look at only two
The Definitional Argument
• According to the definitional argument, it is true by definition that all people
are selfish.
• You are being selfish when you do what you want to do, you always end up
doing what you want to do therefore you are always ending up being selfish.
• Ex: Say it is a Saturday afternoon, and you have a choice to play video games,
which you really like, or tutor a middle school student which you dislike. No
matter what you feel obliged to do in this case, you are always being selfish by
definition even though helping a student with his homework would be seen as
unselfish.
Do you think that it is impossible to be unselfish?
Criticisms
• If by definition, everybody is selfish, then it can no longer be called selfish
because it would be considered custom.
To what extent do you believe in this criticism?
The Evolutionary Argument
• According to the Evolutionary Argument, all humans are born naturally selfish
who are programmed to pursue their own selfish interests.

3. • This theory derives from the idea that we all strive to survive and pass our
success to the next generation and we only care about other people’s interests
only if it affects our own.
To what extent do you believe in this argument?
Are people born selfish?
Criticisms
• Most people can prove that there is empathy and unselfishness in our nature
Would society be the same as it is now if this argument were true?
Utilitarianism
• According to this theory of ethics, there is one and only one moral principle-
that we should find the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” or
“maximize happiness”
What do you think that this means to you?
Would society be stable if this theory were to be pursued?

4. Discussion Questions
1. Do you think that people should use reason to support their value judgments, or
should people be free to state whatever they want?
2. Is this an accurate WOK as a way to gain knowledge? Why?
3. Do you think that moral principals are accurate in their answers? If yes why? If not
why?
4. Does this type of reasoning make a reasonable WOK?
5. Do you think that there are no universal values as a result of moral relativism?
Why?
6. Do you think that it is impossible to be unselfish?
7. To what extent do you believe in this argument?
8. Are people born selfish?
9. Would society be the same as it is now if this argument were true?
10.What do you think that this means to you?
11. Would society be stable if this theory were to be pursued?
12. What type of WOK does this connect to most?