Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System 1 The decisions investigators must make involve a great deal of discretion. Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors. 2 Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors. Some police officers and criminal investigators are not fully aware of the order in 3 which a trial is conducted because time often prohibits them from attending a complete trail from beginning to end. Also, witnesses are often sequestered from the courtroom before and after giving testimony. This very common practice is used to minimize the possibility that a witness’s testimony might be affected by other witnesses’ testimony. The courtroom process begins with the selection and swearing in of a jury. Jury selection can last a few hours or a few weeks, depending on the selection process and the nature of the case. The jury panel from whom the jurors in the trial will eventually be picked is called a venire. The steps in the trial process include: direct examination, cross-examination, redirect examination, re-cross examination, the rebuttal, surrebuttal, and closing arguments. Evidence can be defined as anything that tends logically to prove or disprove a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy. 4 a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy. The rules of evidence are designed primarily to keep a jury from hearing or seeing improper evidence, and the first rule of evidence is designed to set parameters on the above definition of evidence. Proof may be defined as the combination of all those facts—of all the evidence—in 5 determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime. The pie chart above illustrates how several different pieces of evidence can be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt. 6 be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt. The doctrine of judicial notice is an evidentiary shortcut. Judicial notice is designed 7 to speed up the trial and eliminate the necessity of formally proving the truth of a particular matter when the truth is not in dispute. Direct Evidence 8 Direct evidence usually is the testimony of witnesses that ties the defendant directly to the commission of the crime, such as the testimony of an eyewitness who can positively state that the defendant committed the crime. Real Evidence Sometimes referred to as “physical evidence,” real evidence is connected with the commission of the crime and can be produced in court. Demonstrative Evidence Demonstrative, or illustrative, evidence is not identical to real evidence even though the items introduced are tangible. It consists of maps, diagrams, sketches, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes, X-rays, and visual tests and demonstrations produced to assist witnesses in explaining their testimony. Circumstantial Evidence 9 It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime solely o.

1. Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System
1
The decisions investigators must make involve a great deal of
discretion.
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
2
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
Some police officers and criminal investigators are not fully
aware of the order in
3
which a trial is conducted because time often prohibits them
from attending a
complete trail from beginning to end. Also, witnesses are often
sequestered from
the courtroom before and after giving testimony. This very
common practice is used
to minimize the possibility that a witness’s testimony might be

2. affected by other
witnesses’ testimony.
The courtroom process begins with the selection and swearing
in of a jury. Jury
selection can last a few hours or a few weeks, depending on the
selection process
and the nature of the case. The jury panel from whom the jurors
in the trial will
eventually be picked is called a venire.
The steps in the trial process include: direct examination, cross-
examination,
redirect examination, re-cross examination, the rebuttal,
surrebuttal, and closing
arguments.
Evidence can be defined as anything that tends logically to
prove or disprove
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
4
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
The rules of evidence are designed primarily to keep a jury from
hearing or

3. seeing improper evidence, and the first rule of evidence is
designed to set
parameters on the above definition of evidence.
Proof may be defined as the combination of all those facts—of
all the evidence—in
5
determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a
crime.
The pie chart above illustrates how several different pieces of
evidence can
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
6
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
The doctrine of judicial notice is an evidentiary shortcut.
Judicial notice is designed
7
to speed up the trial and eliminate the necessity of formally
proving the truth of a

4. particular matter when the truth is not in dispute.
Direct Evidence
8
Direct evidence usually is the testimony of witnesses that ties
the defendant
directly to the commission of the crime, such as the testimony
of an
eyewitness who can positively state that the defendant
committed the crime.
Real Evidence
Sometimes referred to as “physical evidence,” real evidence is
connected
with the commission of the crime and can be produced in court.
Demonstrative Evidence
Demonstrative, or illustrative, evidence is not identical to real
evidence even
though the items introduced are tangible. It consists of maps,
diagrams,
sketches, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes, X-rays, and
visual tests

5. and demonstrations produced to assist witnesses in explaining
their
testimony.
Circumstantial Evidence
9
It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime solely on
circumstantial
evidence. The broad definition of circumstantial evidence
encompasses all evidence
other than direct evidence, provided that it logically relates the
defendant to the
crime.
Opinion Evidence
The only things on which a nonexpert may give opinion
evidence are matters of
description in which fact and opinion are so interwoven that
they cannot be
separated without losing most of their probative value. Matters
of description in
which a nonexpert may give an opinion include color, size,
shape, speed, mental

6. condition, identity, race, and language.
Demonstration evidence includes items such as:
10
maps
diagrams
sketches
photos
tape recordings
An expert witness is a person who is called to testify in court
because of his or her
11
special skills or knowledge. They are permitted to interpret
facts and give opinions
about their significance to facilitate jurors’ understanding of
complex or technical
matters
The fact that stories tend to be changed when they are repeated

7. makes their
reliability and truthfulness questionable. For this reason, the
hearsay rule
12
reliability and truthfulness questionable. For this reason, the
hearsay rule
was created. Hearsay is derived from “heard say.”
If the circumstances surrounding the hearsay evidence can
ensure a high degree of
trustworthiness and reliability, that evidence is admissible as an
exception to the rule in
13
trustworthiness and reliability, that evidence is admissible as an
exception to the rule in
order to minimize any injustice.
1. Confessions. A confession is an acknowledgment by a person
accused of a
crime that he or she is guilty of that crime. Confessions made
out of court falls within the
hearsay rule. For such confessions to be admissible, they must
meet the tests of

8. admissibility and overcome the assumptions of unreliability and
untrustworthiness.
2. Admissions. One who makes an admission does not
acknowledge all. The
facts surrounding the crime necessary to constitute guilt but
does admit to certain facts or
circumstances from which guilt may be inferred by the jury.
3. Spontaneous and Excited Utterances. If one makes a
spontaneous or
excited utterance after something startling or unusual has
happened, the utterance may be
admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when testified to
by one who heard it made.
4. Dying Declarations. A declaration concerning the facts and
circumstances
of the fatal injury made by the victim of a homicide is about to
die, expects to die, and does
not hope to recover is admissible as an exception to the hearsay
rule.
5. Former Testimony. Written or oral testimony in a hearing or
trial falls within
the hearsay rule if that testimony is sought to be introduced in a
later judicial proceeding.

9. Defendants and other witnesses have a right to have certain
matters of
communication barred from disclosure in court—for example,
confidential
14
communication barred from disclosure in court—for example,
confidential
communications between husband and wife, confidential
communications
between attorney and client, and grand jury proceedings that are
confidential
requirements of law are barred. The evidentiary privileges may
vary from
state to state.
The investigator must inform the jury of the matters
investigated in the case and
15
present this information so that the jury understands the
sequence events and their
significance. But the investigator may not offer personal
conclusions.

10. A police officer is not entitled to any more credibility in the
courtroom than any other
witness. The officer has an equal responsibility, through
presentation, appearance,
demeanor, and the substance of testimony, to persuade the jury
to believe the facts
being related.
The successful testimony of the investigator is based n adequate
preparation
of the case, familiarity with the rules of evidence and with how
juries think
16
of the case, familiarity with the rules of evidence and with how
juries think
and react, knowledge of trail processes, and maintenance of
roper
appearance and conduct at all times.
The good police witness will, at the very least, understand and
appreciate the
fact that juries do not make their determination of guilt or
innocence solely on
the substance of testimony and evidence offered.

11. If civilian clothes are worn, a degree of formality is
appropriate. Conservative
clothes are less likely to offend members of the jury than are
wild, flashy
outfits, even though neat. Police witnesses should be conscious
of their
demeanor from the time they arrive at the courthouse.
Turnitin®
Turnitin® enabledThis assignment will be submitted to
Turnitin®.
Instructions
As explained in the assignment instructions, in order for your
essay to be graded it must be submitted in two areas: (1) to the
DISCUSSIONS page; and (2) to the DROPBOX.
To upload your file here in the Dropbox:
select "Add a File" in the Dropbox assignment area
select "Upload" to search and select the file containing your
essay
once your file name appears in the message box select "Add" at
the bottom of the page
include any necessary comments and then select "Submit"
If you have submitted your essay to the Dropbox correctly you
will receive a receipt via your D2L email system. To view
originality reports for this submission, go to the Submission
History page for this dropbox folder.
Be sure to read everything below:

12. Essay 1 Question: This focuses on central issues in metaethics
and exposes you to normative ethical theories. It then asks you
to consider all of this in relation to your own moral code or
thinking.
Write this philosophical paper in three parts and follow the
prompts in the outline below. In the first part consider the
difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism. In
the second part articulate one normative theory. In the third part
consider you own moral philosophy in relation to the previous
two parts. For example, do you find yourself being more aligned
with objectivism/relativism and the normative theory (e.g., duty
theory, consequentialism, virtue ethics, etc.) that you discussed.
Resources:
Review the resources under Topic 1 in the syllabus. Utilize the
video and IEP article first (links in syllabus), then the
Introduction materials, the Timmons textbook, and other
sources that you find helpful.
Review the resource listed in the syllabus on how to write a
philosophical essay. Be sure that you understand the elements
of writing an introduction and conclusion in philosophy--this is
not the same type of introduction for an English 102 paper. For
the body section follow the outline below closely and rather
than the generic one.
Philosophical Writing:
Explain in your own words, as if you were teaching a concept to
the class. You may use sources, but don't quote them unless
absolutely necessary. I want to hear your philosophical voice.
Be sure not to skimp on Part 3. Part 3 is the most important
section. It works to integrate your exploration and

13. understanding with your own moral thinking.
Some Basics:
Where helpful, use examples. But don't fall into the trap of
telling lengthy stories.
Any citation format is fine. This is not a research paper.
Use page numbers and 12-point font with double spacing.
Minimum length is three full pages, double spaced.
In addition to having an introduction and conclusion, divide
your work into three main sections with a heading for each,
such as "Part 1," "Part 2," and "Part 3." Within each of these
sections include several paragraphs, not just one.
Suggested Outline with Prompts:
Introduction (you don't need to write the heading
"Introduction"). Be sure to include the three elements of an
introduction for a philosophy paper.
Part 1 Metaethics: Moral Objectivism or Relativism?
In this section define and explain the theories. Use one
paragraph for objectivism and another paragraph for relativism.
Can you give examples that demonstrate what each theory is and
is not. If you need more than two paragraphs, that's fine.
Part 2 A Normative Ethical Theory
Present one of the major normative theories such as
duty/deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, etc. Be
effectively concise. After your first paragraph of explaining the

14. theory, write two more paragraphs, one that analyzes the
potential strengths and another that addresses the potential
weakness. As a philosopher you must understand both; you are
not taking sides at this stage.
Part 3 My Own Moral Code
This is the most important section of the paper, so don't cut it
short. In one paragraph consider your own ethical thinking and
the principles or people that inform it. What helps you
determine right and wrong and where do you get this? Then, in
at least one or two additional paragraphs address whether you
are a moral objectivist and whether you subscribe to the
normative theory that you described above.
Conclusion
1
Overview of PHI 110: Ethics Course Materials
This document provides an overview of the course
materials we will use in this class. The purpose
of this class is to
introduce first time philosophy students to the
discipline of philosophy in the context of
ethics. As our subject dealswith
ethics in theory and action, this purpose will be
pursued in two units of study: one focusing on
general ethical theory;
and one focusing on applied ethical theory. Each
unit will contain supporting course materials.

15. The course materials for unit one outlines
philosophical ethical theory in its abstract
form. Here we will use the
“Introduction to the Fundamentals of Philosophical
Ethics” document below, alongside the additional
materials
explained in the course syllabus, to explore the
development and purpose of ethical theory in
the context of general
philosophy.
The course materials for the second unit will
illustrate philosophical ethical theory as it
applies to several contemporary
ethical issues. Here we will use the course text
“Disputed Moral Issues” by Mark Timmons,
alongside the additional
materials explained in the course syllabus, to explore
topics like world hunger and poverty, drug
addition, capital
punishment and the death penalty, physician assisted
suicide and euthanasia, non-human animal
ethics and
environmental ethics. Our purpose in this unit is
not only to become more informed about these
topics, but to explore
the way in which philosophical ethical theory, as
introduced in unit one, applies to the study
of real-world ethical issues.
Unit I: Introduction to the Fundamentals of
Philosophical Ethics
The “Introduction to the Fundamentals of
Philosophical Ethics” document below is written
in dialogue form. Note that

16. the italics print is the philosophical questioner,
while the standard print is the philosophical
guide. You will find study
guide questions on the D2L “Content” page. Use
thesequestions to guide you through the
readings. Havethe study
guides handy as you read and do your best to
answer the questions as you go. This will not
only focus your attention on
the critical points of each section, it will create
a useful study guide for test review
sessions.
This introduction dialogue contains the following four
sections:
Section 1: What is philosophy? (pgs. 2-11 below)
Philosophy – The Love of Wisdom and the
Pursuit of Truth
Three Characterizes of the Philosophical Process
Six Steps of the Philosophical Engagement
Process
Branches of Philosophy
Section 2: Introduction to philosophical ethics
(pgs.
11-25 below)
Popular Ethics and Philosophical Ethics
Approaches

17. Fundamental Characteristics of Philosophical
Ethics
Metaphysical Inquiry and Ethical Evaluation
Ethical Engagement in the Context of the Three
“Tools” of Philosophical Inquiry
Section 3: Introduction to philosophical ethical
theory (pgs. 25-39 below)
Common Failures in Ethical Consideration
Ethical Theory Approaches
Metaethical Terminology
Theory of the Good Approach
Theory of the Right Approach
Section 4: Applied philosophical ethical theory
(pgs. 39-47 below)
Moral Agency – Bringing Ethical Behavior to
Life
Ethical Knowing, Doing and Becoming
This Course – “PHI110: Ethics”
There is a reading schedule for this unit in

18. the course syllabus. Keeping up with this
schedule is the first step in
effectively preparing for upcoming assessment
activities like essays and tests.
2
Section 1: What is Philosophy?
Good morning class. Welcome to “PHI110:
Ethics.” I am your instructor and I would
like to start our discussion today
with the general subject of this course –
philosophy. While philosophical ethics will be
our specific topicof interest for
the class, we will first look at philosophy and its
relationship to ethical study. We will begin
by explaining philosophy as a
both an academic discipline and a way of life. Here
we will look at philosophy in the two forms
of a subject and a
process. Then, we will look more specifically into
the content of philosophy and the
philosophical process. Here we will
introduce a few of the central characteristics of
the philosophical process, as well as, a few of
the fundamental steps
involved in the philosophical method of inquiry.
Then, finally, we will end our discussion
today by briefly looking at the
main branches of philosophy. It is in this final
portion of our discussion where we will
come to identify the specific

19. subject of this course – ethics. But for now, I
would like to know if any of you are
familiar with our general subject –
philosophy. What do you thinkphilosophy is?
For the most part I thinkphilosophy is a bunch
of old, grey haired men talking in strange
ways about who knows
what – I suppose their opinions of the world.
Okay. But you referenced “old.” Why? What
is it about philosophy that lead you to
pointto old age?
Because when I see a “philosophical”
character in a movie, or in my mind for
that matter, he or she is usually old
and grey.And this character is always giving people
advice or explaining things in a weird
manner. When I think
of philosophy I picture Yoda talking to
Luke Skywalker in the movie “The Empire
Strikes Back”.
So, I see we have a “StarWars” fan in the
group. But what do you thinkis the significance
of the oldness of these
characters?
I don’t know – experience maybe?
There we go – experience. Experience is a

20. central element to both your explanations. And
you are right, philosophy is all
about understanding ourselves in the world in an
experiential manner. But it is not about
random or unreflective
experience. That is to say, it is not just about
the mere “knowing” and “understanding”
elements of experience itself. It
is about the manner in which an experience
can enlighten the awareness of experiencer. But
this “enlightened manner”
only occurs when the experience is approached
mindfully. So, this leadsto our first point–
philosophy is about knowing
and understanding our experiences in the world in
a particular way. Perhaps a look at the word
“philosophy” will help to
further explain this “particular way.”
Philosophy – The Love of Wisdom and the Pursuit
of Truth
“Philosophy” is an ancient Greek term that is
derived from the combination of two words:
“phileo” meaning love, and
“sophia” meaning wisdom. Thus, the word
“philosophy” is best rendered as “the love of
wisdom.” But of course, as is
the case with all words, philosophy is much
more than a word or a phrase. At its core
“philosophy” is a way of engaging
with our experiences in the world in a way
that implies wisdom, not just knowledge.
Accordingly, it is not merely an
academic discipline; it is a way of living
one’s life in terms of philosophical
wisdom.

21. Okay, so what is “philosophical wisdom” then?
Since we have already established the relationship
between wisdom and experience, let’s turn our
attention from the
word “philosophy” to the content of the discipline
we will study in this course. This will help
further clarify the “wisdom”
element of philosophy.
Philosophy can be explained in two interrelated
modes: philosophy as a subject, and
philosophy as a process. As a
subject philosophy involves a pursuit of truth.
Now, thereare two concepts here that need our
attention – “pursuit” and
“truth.” Let’sbriefly look at both.
3
“Truth” is the object of inquiry of philosophy.
It is the focus of philosophical inquiry.
Perhaps we could even say that it is
the reason philosophy is what it is. So, what is
“truth” in philosophy’s “pursuit of truth?”
“Truth” as it is rendered here
refers to more than just true knowledge. It also
refers to natural being of the object of
knowledge. This “natural being”
could be described as the natural “presence,” or
simple being of the object as it is

22. “out-there” in the world. It is in this
sense that philosophy, as a pursuit of truth,
aims to discover and describe things as they
are in their natural state in the
world. Now, notice to discover and describe
somethingmeans that we are engaging in a
mental activity about an object
or event that resides beyond the mind of the
discoverer or describer. Let’slook at two
additional ideasthat will help
clarify this: “truth-telling” and “true-being.”
“Truth-telling” generally refers to “truth” in the
realm of human knowledge and action.
Truth-telling involves a situation
where a knowing subject, the “truth-teller,”
explains an object or event truthfully.
“Truthfully” here means a mental idea
rendered in accord with the actual object as it
actually is in the real world. When one
“tells the truth,” one explains
things accuratelyor as we oftencall it –
“factually.” One who tells the “factual truth”
about an object or event is not
merely communicating her own personal opinion or a
whimsical view of things. She is communicating
her mental ideas
about the object in so much as they reflect
or alignwith the actual features of the object
residing in the world. Or to put
it in philosophical jargon – she is
communicating knowledge about what an object
is in itself. It is this “what an object
is
in itself” that is at the core of philosophy’s
pursuit of the “truebeing” of objects and

23. events.
Now, keep in mind that in philosophy stating a
fact or proclaiming the factual nature of
things is not enough to be called
true. In philosophy for knowledge to be called
“truthful” or for one to explain things
“truthfully” means that what is
explained is not just stated as fact. But rather it
is explained in a manner that leadsto
understanding of the fact and its
basis. This means that in philosophy’s pursuit of
truth we aim to explore and explain not only
the facts but the grounding
reasons upon which the facts stand.
Hang on a minute, what do you mean by
“reasons?” Aren’t “facts” and “reasons” the
same thing?
They are related, but they are not the same thing. As
we stated before, a fact could be
explained as an accurate
description of the features or characteristics of a
thing. A reason is that which provides
the basisof that factual
explanation. A reason provides the foundation of
the fact. For example, I may state a fact like,
“This boat floats.” And if
this boat does float, meaning it manages to remain
on the surface when placed in water,
then we could simply say that
“this boat floats.” Now, while “this boat floats” is
clearly a fact in this case, the statement as
such gives no reason for
itselfor for its application to the actual boat

24. residing in the world. In otherwords, simply
stating “this boat floats”
provides no reason or explanation of why this is
a fact. It does not explain why this particular
object is a “boat” and/or
why it floats. In providing a reason for the
factual statement “this boat floats,” we would
need to explain a few different
elements involved. For starters, we would need to
explain why this specific object is a boat –
what makes it a “boat?”
Here we may speak about its shape, the
material of which it is made, its
purpose, its function, etc. Furthermore, in
explaining the reason behind “this boat floats,”
we would need to provide an explanation
for the floating aspect of the
stated fact. Here we would aim to explain the
objects displacement characteristics in regard to
the water in which it is
floating. Doing so would establish a grounded
explanation of why we can refer to the object
as a boat in its form, and
describe its functionality in terms of floating. It
is in this sense that “reasons” provide the
explanations that create a
foundation for the “facts” of a thing.
Okay, that makes sense. I can see that better
now. But I have never really thought about
the differencebetween
a fact and a reason.
Great! I see that we are already starting to

25. thinkmore critically about our experiences. Since
we have managed to clarify
the subject of philosophy as the pursuit of
truth through an understanding of not only the
facts but reasons, let’s move
on to the second element involved in
philosophical inquiry – the “pursuit.”
While philosophy’s subject is truth, it
manifests as a pursuit of truth. It is in
this “pursuit” element where the wisdom
aspect comes to us as activity, rather than
just a thing. As we established before,
wisdom involves someone who
4
interacts with an experience in a particular way.
Accordingly, philosophy, in its love of
wisdom, pursues truth in a
particular way. This “wayof philosophy” aims to go
beyond a “shallow” or “superficial”
understanding of things. It aims
at a critical or deep understanding of things
and their reasons, as they relate to the world
and its reasons. As such,
philosophical understanding relies on a critical
method or process of exploration and
explanation. It is in this process of
exploration and explanation where the “pursuit”
and “wisdom” elements come together.

26. Hmmm. It sounds a bit strange. I can see
the distinction between a fact and a reason.
But pursuit and wisdom
and this process of arriving at the facts and its
reasons is not clear to me. Will you explain
theseparts a bit
further please?
Three Characterizes of the Philosophical Process
Of course. Perhaps if we outline a few
characteristics philosophical engagement it will
help us better explain the process
element of philosophy. The philosophical engagement
process has threedistinct characteristics:
1. It places extremely high value on
philosophical questions themselves;
2. It focuses on and relies upon clear,
adequate descriptions of all elements involved in
what is being described;
3. It involves an attempt to continually
refine what has been discovered.
The first characteristic, the value of philosophical
questions, is a defining feature of philosophy’s
pursuit element. Not
only are the subjects of the questions important,
but questions are a necessary starting pointof all
exploration,
philosophical and otherwise. So, what about the
subject of philosophy’s questions? The subject,
as you may have
derived from our discussion, is understanding the

27. ultimate truth or the truest, most complete being
of an object or
event. This “philosophical understanding” arises in
relation between the facts and reasons of our
knowledge of the
object of inquiry. Philosophical questions are about
the fundamental nature of things. They are
about what these
objects or events are and what things do in
the world. Philosophical questions aim to explore
things in their ultimate
reality, not just in the views of the one who is
exploring and explaining.
Okay, that makes sense. Truth must be about
the object or event itself, not merely
about the viewer or explainer
of the object or event.
That’s right. You’ve got it. As philosophers,
we want to know the object in its real
state – hence you will oftenhear the
term “reality” or “ultimate reality” in philosophical
discourse.
The next feature of philosophical questions holds
true of all pursuits – questions are the
necessary starting pointof all
exploration and explanation. There are a few
things we need to note here. First, questions
oftenarise after we
encounter an object, an experience or event.
Something presents itselfor somethinghappens
and then we ask why,

28. when, who or how type questions. Mind you that
the questions are not what give rise to the
experience or object, but
the object or experience which give rise to
questions. Making note of this distinction is
important as it helps us see that
philosophical engagement is chiefly concerned about
the world and our experience of it, not
just our personal,
subjective experience alone. Second, note the vital
roles curiosity and intentionality play in the process
of exploration.
The initial step to any exploration of truth is
rooted in curiosity and intentionality. In fact in
philosophy, curiosity will not
only play a necessary role at the beginning, but
throughout the entire process of exploration.
Since the goal of philosophy is the pursuit of
truth, to engage in philosophy a
philosopher must be curious as to what
things really are in their ultimate reality– not
just what she believes or wants them to be.
This means in thinking
philosophicallywe must place curiosity of the object
of exploration beyond our personal desire
for the object to have
such and such a character. As philosophers, our goal is
to receive the object from its natural state in
the world. We do
not aim to project our view of the object into
the world. We aim to see the object in its
actuality, not in the light of our
hopes, desires and wishes. As such, the comfort
of familiarity plays a diminished role in

29. the philosophical process.
Instead a philosopher learns to find comfort in
the exploration itself. Thus, to be a
philosopher is not merely to be
5
thoughtful, aware, knowledgeable, etc. It is to
be a wise explorer. And to be wise in this
way does not necessarily begin
or end with knowledge itself; it begins and
ends with curiosity and intentionality.
All that makes sense but I have never thought
of questions in that way.
Well, welcome to philosophy. You will find that
philosophy will push you to thinkabout normal,
everyday things and
events in ways that have never occurred to you.
It’s really something. Now, l thinkwe
are ready to move on to the
second characteristic of the philosophical process –
the focus on clear, adequate descriptions.
When a philosophical question arises, we begin
not only to explore but also attempt to
explain. It is in this explanation
process where clarity and adequacy come into
focus. For a fact and its reasons to be
said to be “truly” or “deeply”

30. understood implies that the description that
accompanies this understanding is clear, not
murky. We would not be said
to understand clearly when we can only explain
somethingas “kind of,” “sort of,” or “more or
less like this or that.”
Ambiguous, imprecise, and/or vague descriptions
are not sufficient for the depth of
philosophical understanding.
The second element involved in philosophical
descriptions is adequacy. “Adequacy” here refers
to the depth of
explanation. As philosophy aims at a deep or
profound understanding of a thing,
philosophical descriptions must follow
suit. An adequate description is one that clearly
and profoundly explains the most essential
features of the thingin
question. Our ability to identify thesefundamental
elements become a hinge pointof our ability
to explain what makes
a thingor event what it is. For example, an
adequate description of a squirrel would
have to go beyond a “furry animal
with four legs and a tail.”Such a generic or surface
description of features of “furry,” “animal,”
etcetera, where all the
terms were clearly described,would not help us to
know what makes a squirrel what it is
and not somethingelse. This is
because theseelements generally apply to all manner
of animals, including a dog, a cat, or a
horse. An adequate
description would explain a squirrel in a
manner that leadsus to understand what makes

31. it what it is and not something
else – i.e. what makes a squirrel a squirrel,
not a horse or dog, etc. Thus, adequate
philosophical descriptions are those
that clearly identify and explain the fundamental
elements that make a thingwhat it is and
not somethingelse.
The third characteristic feature of the philosophical
process is its continuity. Oddly enough,
the philosophical process
does not have a definitive stopping point. As a
process of engaging the world, it manifests as
a constant or ongoing
pursuit of truth. It continually aims to
explore, re-explore, and refine what has been
discovered. With each explanation,
it seeks to go deeper in its understanding. It
is in this sense that philosophical curiosity
and wisdom are not merely
features of the beginning of the process, the
questioning part, but are present throughout.
Perhaps we could say that
philosophy sees humans as magnificent explorers
above and beyond magnificent knowers. This
may be a bit of an
embellishment – but I thinkyou get the point.
The exploration itselfis that which enlightens,
it is not merely what the
exploration produces, namely a theory or
explanation.
Yeah, I thinkI get it. But a discipline that
focuses on the pursuit more than the answers is
new to me. It seems like

32. otherdisciplines tend to focus mostly on the
answers.
Yes, this a distinguishing feature of philosophy. In
philosophy, the questions can be seen as more
valuable than the
answers because questions inherently involve curiosity.
When we ask a question, we become curious
of not only the
answer but also of the process by which we
come to an answer. But having said that,
the inverse is also typically true;
curiosity is oftenlet go of when adequate
answers are given in response to a
question. Oncewe find our answer, our
curiosity is left behind or perhaps we could
even say “replaced” by knowledge. Mind
you that the goal of the
philosopher is not to allow this to happen.
The goal is to maintain curiosity even in the
face of an answer. After all, one
who is “wise” will realize that she can seldom
say that she has looked at a question or
topicfrom all possible angles, all
possible perspectives. There are nearly always
otherways or context in which we can test
what the process has
produced. Thus, the realization of the importance
of questions is not merely at the core of
philosophical curiosity but it
also sits at the core of its counterpart –
philosophical wisdom.

33. 6
Furthermore, it is in this third characteristic where
the “dialogue,” not “debate,” element of the
philosophical process
comes into focus. Philosophical inquiry and
engagement involves an inclusive process, it
does not take place in isolation.
When engaging in a pursuit of truth,
philosophers aim to produce theories that clearly
and accuratelyaccount the
truest, most complete mode of things; the goal is
to account for the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth of
the object of inquiry. As we are attempting to
discover the object that is at the core of all
perspectives of the object,
philosophical engagement pushes us to go beyond
any singular, limited perspective of the object,
including our own
personal view. Philosophers, in their pursuits of
truth, come to rely not only on themselves,
but equally on others. As I, a
singular philosopher in isolation, tend to explore an
object of inquiry from a single perspective,
from my perspective,
when I engage others, using their own
differing angles or perspectives, my pursuit
can be expanded. I can work with
their ideasto reveal othertrue elements of the object
in question, elements that remained hidden from
the limitations
of my own personal view of the object.

34. However, keep in mind that this inclusive expansion of
our pursuit is not automatic. It occurs if,
and only if, I am open to
the methods, ideas, and perspective of others.
When I am open, it follows that I
may have a better chance of discovering
a more extensive mode of exploration and
explanation. But if I am not open, then I
will remain trapped by my own
ideas, values, and perspectives of the true being
of the object or event in question.
Accordingly, when philosophers
engage others in the pursuit of truth, they do
so in an inclusive dialogue, not in a debate.
So, how is a debate different from a dialogue?
When two persons (or ideas) come together in
a debate framework, the goal of the
interaction oftencenters on victory.
But in victory one must win and one must lose. As
this is the case, when involved in a debate
it is easy to lose focus of
our central purpose – pursuing truth. Our pursuit
of truth falls to our focus on winning, and all
too oftenwinning
through all means possible. Accordingly,
philosophical engagement with others occurs in
the framework of a dialogue. In
this dialogue, we involve others to extend the
scope of our exploration. We come
together with otherphilosophers not
as opponents ready for battle; instead, as
colleagues pursuing truth. Their differing

35. ideascan be that which challenges us
to discover a new question, which then gives
rise to a more dynamic pursuit of the objetin
question. A simple way to
thinkof it is that we aim to include other
positions and perspectives in our pursuit to
contemplate the true nature of
things; not to convince, convert or conquer others
and their ideas.
Wow! That sounds like a good idea. But an
approach like this sounds a little idealistic don’t
you think?
I suppose so. It may not only sound idealistic; it
may be a bit idealistic. But keep in mind that
the ideal oftenprovides
both the motive and the standard with which we
evaluate our progress in coming to understand
that object of inquiry in
its truest, most complete state. We tend to rate
how well we are doing in this pursuit based
on a percentage of the
ideal. For example, we rate a baseball player’s
batting average based on one hundred percent
success in reaching base.
Or we rate an essay or a test in school in
accord with a one hundred-percentile ideal.
This one hundred percent is the
highest end of the evaluation scalein both cases.
And while the ideal is rarely achieved, it is
the standard by which we
evaluate our progress. Philosophy’s pursuit of truth
through an inclusive dialogue is much the
same way. The ideal of the
all-inclusive dialogue is the standard that motivates,

36. and in many ways, measures our success.
I suppose that makes sense.
Six Steps of the Philosophical Engagement Process
Now, let’s turn from the general characteristics to
the specific content of the philosophical
process. In order to better
introduce philosophy as a process of engaging
objects the world in terms of their facts
and reasons we will attempt to
identify a few basicstepsthat can be used in
philosophical inquiry. While we could not go
as far as saying that these
stepsare the philosophical engagement process, surely
we could hold them to be helpful elements of
the philosophical
engagement process. There are six basicstepswe
will focus on as we inquire in to the
topics of this class. They are:
7
Step 1: Identify the general topicof inquiry and
formulate a specific question about this general
topic
Step 2: Explore and explain the individual elements
involved in the specific question

37. Step 3: Explore and explain the relationship
between the individual elements involved in the
specific question
Step 4: Explore and explain the relationship
between the elements in the specific question
and the general topic
of inquiry
Step 5: Explore and explain the relationship
between the ideasor theory produced and the
actual world
Step 6: Continuation of the process, aimed at
refining what is discovered
Notice how each step builds on the next;each plays
a role in perpetuating the next step as well as
the overall process. I
thinkthat explaining each in the context of a
specific example will be helpful to clarify
how they operate. In anticipation
of future content of the course, let’s look at
each one as it applies to J.S. Mill’s
Greatest HappinessPrinciple or “GHP” as
it is typically called.
Okay, I thinkI may have heard of the
“Greatest HappinessPrinciple” before.
Great then it should serve our purposes here.
But before we begin let’s take a moment to
note our purpose here. The
purpose of this illustration is not to explore
the content of the topicand question. Our purpose

38. is to merely illustrate the
structure of the six stepsof the philosophical
process. As such, the remainder of our GHP
example will be made in
hypothetical form. This means that we will merely
aim to establish the questions or topics; we
will not argue them
through.
So, you are saying that we are not going to
discuss the GHP in accord with the
philosophical process. We are only
going to establish what we would talk about if
we were going to do so?
That’s right. Since our purpose here is to
illustrate the six steps, we will keep it simple.
That sounds good.
For step 1 of the philosophical engagement process
we would begin by establishing the general
topicand specific
question of our inquiry. As the GHP is a
principle of ethical behavior, perhaps we could
just say that our general topicis –
ethics. Then, following from our general topic,
let’s say our specific questions will be – What
is the GHP and how does it
relate to “ethics?”
As we have established our general topicand specific
question in step one, in step 2 of the

39. engagement process we
would begin by explaining all the individual
elements involved in the GHP. The individual
elements here would be
“greatness,” “happiness,” and “principle.” Our goal in
this step would be to provide a clear,
adequate description of each
individual element, as it is in its own right.
Here we would need to clarify what is meant
by the terms “greatness,”
“happiness,” and “principle.” Our central question
would be, for example, “what is
‘happiness’?”
Moving on to step 3 we would explore the
relationship between the threeindividual elements of
Step 2. The goal here
would be to provide clear, adequate descriptions
of the individual elements not in isolation (as
was the case in step 2)
but as they exist in relation to each other. In
the GHP example we would explain the
relationship between the elements
– “greatness” and “happiness,” “greatness” and
“principle,” “happiness” and “principle.” The
question here is, “How do
‘greatness’ and ‘happiness’ relate to each other
inside the GHP?”
In step 4 we would explore the individual
elements as they relate to the whole. Here
we would explain the relationship
between the individual elements and the specific topic.
However, note that the “individual elements”
transition from
their individual state outlined in step 2, into

40. “compositional elements” of the specific topicin
step 3. It is in this sense
that the elements are no longer seen as
“independent,” but as an ingredient of the specific
topicin question. In our GHP
8
example we would make the connection
between the elements and the whole explicit by
explaining the role each
compositional element – “greatness,” “happiness,”
and “principle” – plays in the specific
topic– the “GHP.” An example
question for this step would be, “What role does
‘happiness’ play in the GHP?” or “What
role does ‘principle’ play in the
GHP?”
Then in step 5 we would explore the GHP,
and its compositional elements, as it relates to
the real world of ethical
actions and behaviors. Our focus here would be
the theory as it relates to the actual
world with its actual people and
events. Accordingly, step 5 would require us to
look not only at the principle outlined in step 4,
but it also requires us to
introduce our general topic– “ethics.” Here we would
have to look at what “ethics” involves – namely
in both its theory
and interactive states. Then, after doing so,
we would be in a better position to

41. explore how our specific topic, the GHP,
relates to our general topic, ethics. But these
parts of the theory, while essential to the
facts and reasons of the
argumentsgiven, are theory argumentsonly.As ethics
is somethingwe do to and with others in
the actual world, our
task here is to better understand the relationship
between our theories and the actual interactive
world around us.
Finally, step 6 the philosophical engagement process
ends by returning to its beginning. In the
spirit of philosophy’s
continual pursuit of clarity and accuracy of
thought, in step 6 we return to step 1 or
2 better equipped with the product
of steps1 – 5. In our current example, we
would re-explorewhat we have learned about
the GHP, ethics and their
compatibility. We would do this to further purge
out any obscurities or inaccuracies. It is in
this step where the process
as a dialogue comes fully into focus. That is
not to say that the dialogue element is firstly
introduced in step 6; it should
be present in all six steps. It is only to
say that it comes to play a foremost role in
step 6. This is because our goal here
would be to re-explorethe topicfrom another
perspective to find new, creative ways to test
what we have discovered.
And it is important that this testing is not done to
confirm or deny our mental theory, instead it
is thereto help us
continually pursue the object as it is in

42. the world. Accordingly, continual inputfrom others
and from the object in world
become helpful tools.
Wow, that seems like a complex process! It is
a lot to keep in mind.
Yes, it is. But philosophy and its pursuit of
understanding an object in its truest, most
complete state is no simple topic
to explore, much less explain. And surely a
complex topicshould be met with an equally
thoughtful, thorough, dynamic
method of exploration and explanation. While
the questions that will arise using thesestepswill
oftenbe quitecomplex,
thankfullythe stepsthemselves are rather
straightforward. Remember, our goal in this
class is not to become an expert
philosopher. Our goal is to introduce the discipline.
The purpose is for you to get a “feel”
for philosophy and its process
of exploring and explaining truth in ethical
situations.
Okay. I will do my best.
Great! As this is a new discipline, and indeed
a new way of thinking about issues for
which you already have answers,
take it one step at a time.You will be challenged
but you need not be discouraged. Philosophy is
all about challenging

43. our pre-conceived ideasand lazy assumptions. It does so
not to destroy or frustrate, but to spark
(or even re-spark)
curiosity where answers have come to reign.
This curiosity is a key that can push us to
come to know ourselves and our
world more deeply and sincerely.
Before we move on thereis one vitally
important pointto note about what we have
discussed thus far – the
interdependence of the threeelements of the
philosophical process. These elements are: (a)
the pursuit of truth, (b) the
questions, and (c) the six stepswe will use while
involved in that pursuit. Together theseparts make
up the overall
framework of the philosophical process we will
use in this course. While each part has its
own characteristics, none
exists in exclusivity. Each part is integrally related
to every otherpart, as well as to the overall
philosophical process as a
whole. As such, each part is both a means to
and a goal of our pursuit of truth and should
therefore be treated with the
utmost care and attention.
9
So, I understand that when I come across
a philosophical question I can turn to these

44. six stepsto guide me
through the process of exploration and explanation.
Will thesesix stepsalways apply?
Yes, the stepswill remain constant while the topics
of inquiry will change. But do not forget
about our intention as
philosophers – the pursuit of truth defined by
the actual being of the object residing in
the world, not merely my or
someone else’s idea of truth. When this
intention is present, the philosophical engagement
process will apply to all the
topics and questions we will be exploring in this
course. If you come to feel stuck during
any learning activity in the
course, whether it is in a class discussion, a
writing assignment, or a reading assignment,
make it a habitto turn back to
your intention and thesesix steps. Start in sequential
order, mindfully working your way through all
six steps. But
remember, your job in the course is not to be
perfect. Your job is to be curious and to
get involved in the philosophical
engagement process.
As you will soon see, thereare somelearning activities in
the course that focus on particular steps.
Take the writing
assignments and discussion classes for examples.
Given the fact that the essay topics and
questions are pre-established,
steps2-5 will be our prime focus on your writing
assignments. Regardingour class discussions, step 6

45. is of prime
importance. Our goal in thesediscussions will not
merely be to find a sufficient answer. Our
goal is to instigate curiosity,
wisdom, and exploration, being the threepillars of
philosophical inquiry. The pointhere is that, given
the goal and
character of philosophical engagement in contrast to
otherdisciplines, we will do well to continuously
return to our
intention and thesesix stepsthroughout the course. If
you get stuck thinking “how do I even
start with this question or
topic?” – start there.
I will try to keep that in mind.
Now that we have discussed philosophy in its abstract
form, before we finish for the day I
want to introduce you to the
main branches of philosophical exploration. This will
help us move from philosophy as abstract
theory, toward
philosophy as theory in practice.
As we have established thus far philosophy is
the pursuit of truth through a dynamic process
which aims at clarity and
adequacy of thought and understanding by means of
an inclusive dialogue. The question that follows is,
what are the
particular subjects of philosophy? There are five
main branches of philosophical inquiry. They are:
metaphysics,
epistemology, logic, aesthetics, and ethics. Let’s
take a moment to briefly describe each before

46. we come to focus on the
particular subject of this course – philosophical
ethics.
Branches of Philosophy
The first branch on the list is metaphysics.
Metaphysics, is made up of two words –
“meta” and “physics.” “Meta” here
refers to “before” or “beyond,” while “physics”
refers the study of change or motion in
the natural world. Thus,
“metaphysics” is the study of the identity of
things in their unchanging state. Now,
given the seeming ever-changing
nature of our world, this gives rise to many
questions I am sure.
Wait, wait. Did you say “the study of what doesn’t
change?” I am not sure that anything does not
change. When
I look around I see that everything changes.
Sure, things as they appear to our senses
(see, taste, touch, smell, hear)seemto be
ever-changing. But when we “look”
closely with our minds in conjunction with our
senses we notice that things seemto change
in one way, and not change
in another. Take my personal identity for example.
We can see that I am “Joel” but when
we try to find my fundamental
characteristics we run into a problem with time and
change. What “Joel” is seems to

47. transcend what I was in the past –
an infant who could not walk, speak, or
teach a philosophy class. Furthermore,
“Joel’s Joelness” seems to equally
transcend what I may become in the future – an
old decrepit, senile Joel who could not walk,
or make much sense when
he talks, much less teach a philosophy
class. The pointhere is that while my
physical form will change, thereseems to be
somethingin me that goes beyond change. My
“Joelness” seems to transcend many of
the changing elements of my life.
10
This “Joelness” could be said to be my first
principle – or to put it more plainly, the
features that make up a key element
of my identity; they make me who I am –
“Joel.” But this “first principle” explanation
approach does not only apply to
me. It will apply to all manner of things.
Take a cow for example. While we may see a
field of many individual cows, if we
pay attention we notice that thereis a “cowness”
present amid them all. While each cow possesses
his or her own
specific characteristics, each is a cow as each
participates in the general category of “cow.”
This “cowness” category is
the first principle – or “categorical form” as it

48. is oftenput in philosophical jargon – which
is shared by all cows. The same
can be said for “humanity,” “tables,” or any other
physical form. While variety and change is
ever-present in a roomfull
of chairs, thereseems to also be an unchanging
category of “chariness” that is equally present.
Metaphysics, in studying the unchanging categorical
forms or first principles of things, is
comprisedof two sub-branches:
ontology and epistemology. Ontology is the study of
being or the fundamental existence of an
object, while
epistemology is the study of our knowledge
and how we know about ourselves and our
experiences of the world and its
objects. As we saw before, epistemology focuses
not only on what is known, but how something
has come to be known.
This branch dealswith the distinction between an
opinion, a belief, a fact, and a reason.
We will see epistemology, and
its partner ontology, play a leading role in several
of the ethical theories we will look throughout
the course.
Next comes logic, a closerelative of
epistemology. Logic is the study of
argumentsthrough validforms of reasoning.
Reason relates to the process by which we
think. Our ability to reason is that which
enables us to derive a conclusion
from premises. A premise provides the foundation
for an argument’s conclusion. Premises are

49. oftencomprisedof
evidence, beliefs, facts, etc. Accordingly, we come
to know not only a conclusion of the
argument, but the premises
upon which the argument is built. Following from
this, logicpredominantly studies an argument in
terms of the
relationship between its premises and its conclusion.
Next on our list is aesthetics. Aesthetics is
the study of beauty. While aesthetics is
oftenassociatedwith the arts,
philosophy studies beauty in all its forms.
This means that in philosophical aesthetics beauty
is not merely explored in its
particular forms – i.e. this is a beautiful rose.
But beauty is studied in and of itself.
This aspect of aesthetics aims to
explore and explain what “beauty” means in its
own right, not merely in relation to other
things.
Finally, thereis ethics. It is in ethics where
we see a transition from theory to practical
application. From philosophical
ideasto philosophical actions. The discipline of ethics
incorporates elements drawn from the other
branches. This is
because, at a base level, ethics involves the
study of the way ethical agents pursue a
good life as an intelligentsocial
creature. This “good life” is not merely an
abstraction, but a practical way of knowing,
being and doing in the world. This
“practical way”involves the manner that ethical

50. creatures take account for the actions they chose
during their pursuit of
the good life. But the “practical way”of ethics is
not defined by individual pursuits alone; it is
defined by consideration
actor’s actions choices as they take account for
the interests and worth of all persons
involved in their action choices.
This “all involved” includes themselves playing the
role of actor(and action evaluator) but also all
others included in
their actions. Accordingly, ethical study involves
exploring the way ethical creatures pursue a
good life through their
interpersonal interactions. It studies the “way” in
which the actor’s views, values and actions
choices relate to those
around them. It is for this reason that ethical
study requires us to draw from all realms of
our experience and
knowledge.
Those subjects cover a lot of topics. I
would imagine that you could study
philosophy for a long time and not
become an expert in any one of the fields.
Yeah, that’s probably true. But do not forget
that as philosophers we are not merely aiming
for knowledge, but wisdom.
And this “wisdom” element is greatly tied to the
philosophical method of exploration. Even if
perfection or expertise is

51. improbable, it is the curiosity and the deliberate
process of engagement in the pursuit of
truth that makes philosophers,
philosophers. As philosophers, being an “expert” is
not our primary objective. Our primary concern is
the wisdom of the
pursuit itself.
Okay, I thinkthat is enough for today. Come
back next time and we will dig deeper into the
specific subject of this class –
ethical philosophy.
11
Section 2: Introduction to Philosophical Ethics
Welcome back class. In our last session, we
discussed philosophy and its relationship to
ethics. If you remember we
talked about philosophy as both a subject
and a process. In so doing, we outlined
someof the general characteristics of
philosophical engagement process, which included
threegeneral characteristics alongside six main steps.
Then finally,
we capped off our discussion by outlining the
main branches of philosophical inquiry.
Today we will turn our focus to the specific
topicof this course – ethical philosophy.
Our plan today is to discuss a few of

52. the main points concerning philosophical ethics.
We will begin by looking at the difference
between a “popular ethics”
approach and philosophical ethics approach to
interactive situations. This comparison will
prepare us for a more
comprehensive description of philosophical ethics
and its approach to interpersonal interactive
actions and behaviors.
Finally, we will outline someof the first principles or
fundamental characteristics of philosophical ethics.
Here we focus
our attention on threemain aspects involved in the
philosophical approach to ethics: ethical
contexts, ethical actions,
and the philosophical process as it applies to an
ethical framework.
Professor, you said somethingabout “popular ethics.”
What do you mean by this?
Popular Ethics and Philosophical Ethics Approaches
Okay, this question serves as a good start to
our topictoday. Let me start by saying that
when I refer to “popular ethics”
I am not referring to a formalized field of
ethics. Instead, I am referring to an
informal type of ethical engagement.
“Popular ethics” is the everyday ethical approach
that is known by many who are not
familiar with philosophy. This
mainstream type of ethical engagement involves
“ethics” as is commonplace in our culture. I
bring up the popular ethics

53. approach not to clarify its content but to serve
as a backdrop against which we can
distinguish the philosophical
approach to ethics.
I thinkI am one of those people who are
familiar with ethics but not philosophy. While
I know very little about
philosophy, I feel like I have been taught about
“ethics” my entire life.
I am sure you have heard about “ethics” in a
variety of places, but I bet that you have
rarely, if ever, heard ethics talked
about in the context of philosophy. So, the
question that follows from this comparative
framework is, “What is the
difference between ‘popular ethics’ and ‘philosophical
ethics’?”
In “popular ethics” ethical actions and behaviors
are oftentalked about in the context of
religion, culture, or personal
values and opinions. When we attempt to explain
or justify our ethical approach we oftenpointto
one of thesethree
sources. Here we explain that “ethics” has to do
with a spiritual belief or religious scripture. If
not religion, perhaps we
pointto a social moray. If not a cultural
norm, we many pointto a personal
inclination or opinion. Either way, notice
that
such explanations are nothing more than a simple

54. statement of fact. They say, “My ethics comes
from X.” As such, they
leave both the content and deeper foundation of
the ethics unrevealed. While many may
believe that the source of the
ethic is its justification, this is not the case in
philosophy. As we talked about last time,in
philosophy we need more than
the fact; we need both the facts and the reasons behind
the facts that are argued.
I see that we are back to the distinction
between a “fact” and a “reason” that we
talked about last time.
Yes. The relationship between a fact and its reasons
is a theme that will continue throughout
the process of
philosophical engagement and explanation. This
fact/reasons distinction helps to reveal
the first philosophical failure of
“popular ethics” approach. “Ethics,” as it is known
from a “popular ethics” standpoint, rarely
provides more than a
“surface-level,” “matter-of-fact” explanation of its
approach to ethical situations. As we
discussed before, for knowledge
to be “philosophical,” whether it comes in
the form of an idea, a belief, a theory, or
principle, it must be understood and
explained in terms of both its facts and reasons. It
is important to remember that a main purpose of
the philosophical
process is to make the implicit or hidden
elements of our knowledge, explicit or plain.
In our pursuit of truth, our goal is

55. 12
to unveil all that is veiled in both the world
and in our understanding of it. As the reasons
for the ethic oftenremain
either hidden or unknown in the “popular ethics”
approach, it falls shortof the standard of clarity
set by philosophical
ethics.
Well that seems to me to be in line with the
theme that we have been discussing so far.
Philosophy is all about
depth and accuracy of understanding.
You bet. As you may be thinking, a simple
reference “from where” the ethics is derived
does very little in explaining the
fundamentals of the ethics.
Sure, I see that but I have a question here.
Why do I need to justify my ethics to
anyone otherthan myself? It’s
mine, so why do I need to justify it to
you or anyone else?
Good question! This is an important one for ethics
as it points to a critical feature of

56. ethical action.
As ethics involves the way we interact with others,
others play a key a part of the equation.
This means that while my
code of ethics may belong to me personally,
my ethical actions do not. By their very nature
they involve me and others.
They involve how I relate to others and how
others related to me. Accordingly, we could
say that my ethical actions,
when acted out in the world become inter-
actions that “belong” to me and others they
involve. So, whether my ethic is
derived from a belief in God, from the Constitution,
from my mother, my culture, or even from my
own personal
opinion, I and others are equally involved in
my ethical actions. While I may play the
role of the actor, in the context of
ethical consideration my personal values, ideasand
beliefs alone do not provide sufficient reasons
for my action’s ethical
correctness. This is because I am not an “I” in
solitude in an ethical interaction. I am an
“I” amongst an “us.”
Okay, I never thought of it that way but I
guess that makes sense. I am acting
but my action includes others,
therefore, to act ethically I must include them while
considering my action.
That is correct. This pointhighlights the second failure

57. of the “popular ethics” approach. In “popular
ethics” when
determining which actions or behaviors are
appropriate, the value of the acting agent
is oftenconsidered in an
unbalanced manner. This unbalanced view oftenarises
because the acting agent plays two key
roles in an ethical
situation. She plays the acting role, as well as,
the evaluator role. This means that in an ethical
situation she must not
only choose and carryout her action, she must also
evaluate her action in the context of an
ethical framework. As an
actor, the acting agent oftenacts from her
interests and desires which are drawn from
her sense of self-worth. When
she findsherself involved in a situation, ethical in
nature or not, it is oftenthesepersonal
elements that move her to
action. However, in an ethical context we must
note that her action involves more than just herself
as an actor; it also
equally involves others as recipients of her action.
Accordingly, to be ethically minded she must
consider her interest,
desires, and self-worthalongside that of all others
involved.
I thinkI get it but this seems to be rather
important here. To make sure it is clear to
me, could you explain it a
little more?

58. Sure. As the evaluator of the ethical action it
is important that we distinguish the relationship
between ourselves as an
actor/interest holder, and the interactive action
we are undertaking. Let’sexplain this relationship
using two familiar
terms – “public” and “private.” “Public” means
that which is shared or held in a manner
that includes others, while
“private” means that which is personal or held
independent of others. Ethical actions, being
interactions with others,
makes them both a “private” and “public” matter.
While they may originate from myself as a
“private” agent, my
interactions are “public” sincethey impact lives of
multiple otherindividuals. In this way, ethics
involves the private
realm of our actions as they relate to the
public and vice versa.
Yeah, I thinkthat makes sense.
13
Good. So, if an acting agent cannot see
that her interests, desires, and self-worthare her
private matter, while the
interaction is a public matter, then her
judgment is oftenskewed. To further clarify
this point, let’s explain this using a
specific example. Take one of the more common

59. versions of the “Golden Rule” – “treat
others the way you want to be
treated.” As this rule is openly taking the acting
agent and others into account, it is clearly
a code of ethical behavior. But
notice what the “treat others…” phrase is
ascribing. It argues that “others” should be
treated or acted upon in accord
with the values and views of “you,” the acting
agent. This ethical code prompts us to act in
a manner that pays
inadequate regard for the values and views of
the one(s) acted upon. To put it in
another way, in this version of the
“Golden Rule” I am treating others as I
see fit, not as they desire. Thus, the values,
interest, and standards of the actor
are being imposed on the recipients of the action.
The actoris being directed to determine her
action by her own
“private” standard, not by an inclusive “public”
standard. Clearly this is an ethical failure as
ethics is about consideration
of others and myself by receiving their interests,
desires, and values, not imposing myself or
my values on others.
Wow, that is shocking to me! I have never
thought of the “Golden Rule” in this way.
But I can see how this
approach could lead to an imposition rather
than an act of genuine ethical consideration.
Okay, then here we are once again being

60. challenged by philosophical approach to this
issue. Philosophy is all about
critical engagement with new, and not so new ideas.
But, even so, let’s be careful not to overstate
what we have
discovered here. “Treat others the way you would
like to be treated” is but one version of
the Golden Rule. As we have
not explored otherversions, we are not prepared to
evaluate their accuracy. We are, however, in a
good position to
refine the content of this version to make it
more ethically correct. Perhaps we could change
it to, “treat others the way
they want to be treated.” Or even better yet, “treat
others the way they should be treated –
‘should’ here implying
‘ethically.’” I thinkthis version of the rule better
alignwith the spirit of what the Golden Rule is
attempting to explain.
But note that we could not accuratelychange it to,
“sacrifice your own self-worthfor the sake of others.”
This version
would go too far in the otherdirection. A “self-
sacrificial” principle as such would result in us
allowing others impose
themselves on you. For an action to be correct
in philosophical ethical terms means that
the action cannot be self-
serving or self-sacrificing. It must go beyond
both extremes. It must be inclusive of all the
ethical entities involved in the
exchange. And I do not thinkwe would go too
far in saying that the “wayof treatment”
outlined in the Golden Rule in
the form of “treat others the way you would

61. like to be treated” is a way of inclusion,
not exclusion.
That sounds good. I thinkthis makes the “wayof
ethical treatment” of the “Golden Rule”
more plainand clear.
Okay great. I am glad to see that your
curiosity is being stimulated. It is also
greatto see your willingness to explore
someof the core values and views you may hold.
This willingness is essential to becoming a
philosopher.
The second thingI would like to address here is
another pointof review from our last class.
Remember in philosophy the
answer is not more important than the process. Notice
how we cameto see this inconsistency. We did
not need to
discover “from where” this version of the
“Golden Rule” came. All we did was to
look at this rule in relation to ethical
actions and behaviors. We did not need to turn to
an external or arbitrary source to evaluate.
Our ability to consider the
interaction and interactive context itselfprovided us
with the evaluation tools we needed.
Right, another good point.
This highlights the third and final failure of the
“popular ethics” approach we will discuss today.
When facing an ethical
situation, the acting agent of the “popular ethics”

62. approach oftenrefers to an exclusive source
for a standard to
evaluate an ethical action. This referral generally
includes sources like a religious text, a written
rule like a law, or
cultural norms. Now, not only are thesestandards
oftenvague, but notice how thesestandards relate
to the situation in
which they are intended to operate.
Wait, are you saying that a personal,
cultural, or religious belief is not justified in
ethics?
14
No, that is not my pointhere. Of course, a
person’s personal beliefs are justified in so
much as they are held by the
holder. But as ethics involves interactive
exchangesbetween multiple people – personal,
cultural, or religious beliefs
themselves do not play the lead role in evaluating
the ethical correctness of an interaction.
Evaluation standards derived
from personal, cultural, or religious beliefs fall shortin
ethical philosophy as they oftendo not meet
the standard of
inclusivity required in considering action choices
relating to both the private and public realms
of ethical exchanges.

63. What do you mean?
As ethics necessarily involves an interactive
exchange between the actorand others, the
standard of evaluating the
ethical correctness of the action must be equally
inclusive of all the entities involved. The issue
here is that, as personal,
cultural, or religious beliefs tend to include the
values and views of some, while
excluding others. They tend to focus on
specific persons or groups, making them inadequate
foundations from which we can derive a
standard to evaluate a
“public” or shared interaction.
Sure, I can see that. But what about in the
case where a cultural standard or a
religious standard is used, but only
where all involved fall within that culture or
religious group. Could a cultural or
religious based standard be
correctly used in such a case?
Perhaps only then would the cultural or religious
perspective meet the inclusive standard of
evaluating an ethical action.
But notice that in such a case, it is not the
standard of inclusivity of that has changed to
meet the cultural or religious
standard. Rather it is that the cultural or
religious standard that has met the standard of
inclusivity required for ethical

64. action evaluation.
At this stageI can see that philosophical ethics
and “popular ethics” will approach ethical
situations differently.
Given my experiences and what we have talked
about so far, I thinkI have a pretty
good grasp on “popular
ethics” but I would like to understand more
about philosophical ethics.” I am not sure
how I would even start to
discover an appropriate standard to evaluate my
ethical action using this approach.
Sure. This is also a good question. Let’sbegin
with a description of a few of the
necessary elements that make
philosophical ethics what it is and not something
else. Doing so will help us recognize the context
in which ethical
actions arise and are evaluated.Regardingphilosophical
clarity and accuracy, this description will contain
several parts.
We will outline threefundamental characteristics that
make philosophical ethics what it is. These
are: the fundamental
features of an ethical situation; the fundamental
features of an action which is evaluated as
a correct ethical action; and
the philosophical method as it is used in
evaluating this correctness.
Fundamental Characteristics of Philosophical Ethics

65. As we discussed above, in the “popular ethics”
approach an unbalanced amount of attention is
oftenprovided to the
acting agent. The ethical actor, concurrently
playing the role of actorand action evaluator,
oftentends to place too
much weight on her own views and perspectives.
When we discover the discrepancy of this
position our inclination as
the action evaluator is oftento move attention
from the actorto the recipient of the action.
But the result of this change
oftenresults in a discrepancy that mirrors the
first – the recipient receives too much weight
of consideration. And as
ethics is a form of receptive consideration, not
imposition, the solution to thesefailures lies in
our ability to see more
than just the individual persons or individual actions
involved; we must see them in the greater context
in which they
are involved.
In exploration of this context, it is important to
identify the main question of our inquiry. That
question is, “What are the
defining features of an ethical situation, as
opposed to a non-ethical situation?” These
questions are important as they
push us to explore which situations provoke ethical
consideration from the acting agent.
As we have already seen,ethics necessarily
involves interaction. While actions themselves
are not necessarily ethical in
nature, when they play out as interactions they

66. are. That is to say, when our actions
ultimately involve two or more
15
ethical entities, it falls within the scope of
ethical engagement. As such, ethical
situations are those which involve more
than interactions – they involve interpersonal
interactions. Ethics dealswith actions and
behaviors that play out
between multiple “persons” or what we will call “ethical
entities.” This means, “ethics” dealswith interactive
relationships between ethical entities. Given that
explanation, it is important to note that we
are highlighting behaviors
and actions because ethics necessarily involves
action as a key element. While an ethical
intention to consider ourselves
alongside others is a critical aspect of ethical
engagement, it alone cannot sufficiently
explain the totality of an ethical
act. For an act to be called “ethically correct” in
the full sense of the term it must be
actually acted out in the world. And
in the world, ethical actions play out as
interactions involving multiple persons –
including the actorand the recipients of
the action.
That makes sense with what we have been discussing.

67. In ethics, we are talking about actions in
which two or
more persons are involved.
Correct but thereare two points that we need to
address here regarding the term “persons.” First,
many times someof
the “persons” involved in the action may not be
notably present at the time of the action.
Let’stake a situation where
we are buying a product in a store to
illustrate. While it initially appears that the
only ethical “person” involved in an act
of purchase is myself as a purchaser, closer
inspectionwill reveal that that are multiple persons
equally involved. For
instance, if we are paying attention to the context
in which we are acting we can see that
thereare others present when
we purchase the product – e.g. a store owner,
store employees, othershoppers around us, etc.
While theseare
relatively apparent entities involved in the exchange, a
bit of deeper thought will reveal that there
are also several
“hidden” others. These others are “hidden” in
the products involved in the act of purchasing.
This is because the
creation of the product naturally involves others –
e.g. the producer, those involved in packing
and shipping, farmers,
miners, etc. While this second group of
“hidden” persons may not be physicallypresent at
the time of purchase, it does
not follow that they are not at all involved.

68. Clearly, they are by the necessity of their role in
the situation, regardless of
their immediate physical presence.
So, it is important to remember that just because a
“person” is not immediately present and/or
directly involved in the
ethical action at the time that it unfolds, it
does not necessarily follow that they are not
involved. As philosophers, we
must learnto grasp the totality of the situation
through what is immediately before us.
I see. When acting ethically we must be aware
of the action as it relates to people
who are immediately present
and those who are affected but not present at
the moment the interaction takesplace.
That’s right. The second issueregarding the phrase
“ethical persons” is that we need to clarify
the ideal of “personhood”
as it applies to ethical consideration. The issue
here is not that the term “persons” is incorrectly
associatedwith ethics;
obviously ethics is all about interactive
treatment where we treat persons as persons
rather than things. It is that when
we refer to “persons” in “popular ethics,” personhood
generally applies only to human entities.
For example, imagine asking someone using the
“popular ethics” approach, “Why in ethics
are humans treated as

69. ‘persons,’ not ‘things’?” The typical response would
be, “Because they are persons and not things.” If
we then asked,
“Why is this so?” or “What makes a person
a person and a thinga thing?” – the
typical response might be, “I don’t
know.” or “Justbecause they are.” Such responses, of
course, would not suffice for an adequate
philosophical
explanation. This is because a philosophical
explanation requires us to account for both
facts and reasons. As such, we
cannot lightly accept one entity, or group of
entities as deserving ethical consideration while
excluding another. If this
same question of “ethical personhood” arose during
philosophical engagement, we would begin by
clarifying the
fundamental features of “ethical personhood.” Then,
once we have done so then we would be in a
better position to
determine which entities are included within the
general category of “ethical personhood” and
the ethical consideration
that follows.
Okak yeah, I thinkI understand the
difference. But what makes an entity an
“ethical entity” in philosophy then?
16

70. General speaking, in philosophy an entity or
“being” is oftenincluded in the category of
“ethical personhood” to the
extent to which the entity is invested in
living a good life. Furthermore, “living a
good life” is a life livedin a manner that
brings out the potential of the living agent.
This means that a good life is one that is
both desirable and beneficial to the
one living the life. The term “desirable” in this
phrase points to the interest of the one
living the life, while “benefit”
points to the development of those interests in
the context of time.This means that at the
lower end of the spectrum,
desirable and beneficial may simply involve a life
without suffering, whereas on the higher end of
the spectrum,
“benefit” may include choices and actions which
aim at bringing forth the life-liver’s potential.
Now having said that, it is critical to note that
that while “good life” is a general term
that applies to all living beings, the
content of any specific person’s good life will vary
based upon the identity of the liver of the
life. That is to say, the good
life of all living beings is not the same.
The good life of each being is determined by
the being’s makeup. Thus, the good
life of a human animal is not the same as a
non-human animal; or that the good life of a
plantis not the same good life
as an animal.

71. I can see how the good life of an ethical entity
is specific to each living person. My good
life as a human being will
clearly be different than that of otherliving beings
like a dog or cow.
Good. But if not, do not worry. I am sure
this will become clearer as we continue along
our journey into philosophical
ethics. Later in the course we will look at
the way our food production system involves
non-human ethical entities,
particularly farm animals and the ecological
environment. These topics will push us to
further explore the fundamental
characteristics that make an entity an ethical
entity. Or to put it another way, the will
push us to explore which, if any,
entities can correctly be regarded as “things,” and
which should be regarded as “persons.”
Okay, that sounds like an interesting topic.
As the first fundamental feature of philosophical
ethics addresses ethical contexts, the second
dealswith the ethical
actions involved in those contexts. The focus
question here is, “What makes an ethical
action a correct ethical action?”
Or to put in another way, “What are the
fundamental features of a ‘correct’ ethical
action?”

72. In philosophical ethics, an ethical action is
oftendeemed to be correct to the extent in
which it considers the interests
and worth of all ethical entities it involves.
But this inclusive consideration does not arise in
the action itself; it arises in
the mindset of the actor. To clarify this
important issue, it will be helpful to
distinguish between an ethical act and
ethical behavior.
In the context of ethics an “action” arises
when ethical agent exercises her ability
effect the situation in which she finds
herself. That is to say, an agent acts when as
she does somethingthat influencesor changes the
world. An action is
exemplified in someone driving a car to
shopping or opening the door to enterthe grocery
store. “Behavior,” on the
otherhand, indicates the genera of a group of
actions. It involves the classification and
characterization of a group of
actions. Accordingly, behavior accounts for more than
just the action itself; it also accounts for
additional elements
including the actor’s mindset used when evaluating
the actions appropriateness for a given
situation, and the general
characteristics of the action as it compares to
alternative courses of action. It is for
thesereasons that we use verbs to
identify an action, and adverbs to identify
behavior. The action-verb indicates the act of
doing, while the behavioral-
adverb characterizes the manner or way of the

73. doing.
In returning to the door opening example, we could
say that given the needs of the actorin
the context of the situation,
the act of opening the door to the grocery store
falls under the general behavior category of
useful and sensible actions.
While “opening the door” refers to the specific
action applied to this specific context, the
“useful” and “sensible”further
describe the action through the general behavior
elements that are shared by a variety of
otheractions falling in the
same category.
Sure. I can see that. But why is it important to
make this distinction in ethics?
17
So far, we are attempting to explain “ethical
engagement” as it relates to the
interpersonal interactive context in which
it arises. Outlining the foundational characteristics of
ethical behavior is important as it will help us
see both the manner
and context in which ethical agents evaluate
the ethical correctness of any particular course
of action.

74. In the example above we are looking at an
action that is not explicitly ethical. This is
because, at face value, it only
involves the acting agent, the actorof opening
and the door to the grocery store. If we
added another person to the
situation, say another shopper attempting to exit
the building carrying several bags of groceries,
we would have an
interpersonal interactive context. The “interpersonal”
element would be comprisedof two
shoppers/actors as they
relate to each otherthrough the “interactive” element
– the act of opening of the door to
enter/exit the store. If the
entering shopper opened the door to allow the
exiting shopper to exit without having to
put her bags down, we could
say that the act of opening the door in this manner
falls under the general behavior category of
respect. The opener
opened the door in a respectful manner by acting
out course of action based in considerate
recognition of the interest of
both persons – the exiting shoppers need to exit
the building with ease, and the entering shoppers
need to open the
door to enterthe store. The “opening of the door”
is the ethical action, while the “considerate
recognition” is the ethical
behavior mindset.
Okay. Got it! That makes more sense to me.

75. Great! To sum-up this point, thus far in our
exploration we have focus much of our
attention on uncovering the specific
features that make ethical behavior what it is
and not somethingelse. And in response to the
question, “What are the
fundamental features of a ‘correct’ ethical
action?” – we have described ethical behavior as
based in a mindset of
inclusive, unbiased consideration where the acting
agent accounts for the interests and worth of
all ethical entities
involved in her action choices. The next topicof
focus will be the specific actions that arise in
the context of ethical
behavior. Our main question here is, “What is the
purpose of choosing an action that adheres to
ethical behavior?”
The first purpose may be rather obvious given
what we argued so far – because it is
correct to do so. As an ethical action
is a “public” or inclusive interaction, it should
be approached and evaluated accordingly. To be
correct in our ethical
actions, we oftenattempt to do two things: (1)
we attempt to act accurately; and (2) we
attempt to act beneficially.
Starting with the first purpose – in acting
accuratelyin an interpersonal interactive context
we aim to exercise ethical
behavior. Accordingly, “accurately” in the context of
ethics means that we act in a manner
that shows consideration for

76. the particular situation at hand as it relates to
the characteristics of philosophical ethics we
have been discussing. As
consideration is at the core of “acting accurately”
in ethics, ethical actions arise from the ethical
behavior mindset
outlined above. This “ethical mindset” is not based
in unbalanced biased consideration, but
balanced un-biased
consideration; it is ethical to the extent that it
equally recognizes the interests of all persons
involved.
I am a little confused by this
balanced/unbalanced distinction. Is therean
example you can provide?
Acts of slavery, defined as one person owning
another, is a good example. Acts of enslavement
operate by a course of
action that unequally recognizes each person
involved. One person is owned by their
counterpart, while the other
cannot be. In otherwords, in acts of enslavement,
an act which involves multiple persons, the
one enslaved can never
be an owner (as she does not even own herself,
much less another) and vice versa. So, as
we can see thereis an internal
bias in acts of enslavement. By its essence slavery
is partial to the interests and worth of
one of the ethical entities
involved over the other. It is in this way that
acts of slavery fail to meet the standards of
equal inclusivity of ethical
behavior.

77. Sure, I thinkI am seeing that.
I thinkthis will become clearer when we further
develop this example later when we talk about
theories of ethical
behavior. For now, let’s turn our attention to the second
purpose – the element of benefit.
18
Okay, so “benefit.” What’s this purpose all
about?
The second reason we act ethically correct is
because we aim to benefit. In otherwords, an
action manifesting as an
interaction is deemed to be ethically correct to
the extent to which it is beneficial to all
ethical entities involved. As
“beneficial action” in ethics includes the tenants
of ethical behavior, “all ethical entities
involved” includes the acting
agent and all others involved in the interactive
exchange.
So, here an ethical action is said to be correct
to the extent to which it benefits all
ethical entities involved. Does
this relate to the “good life” we talked about
before?

78. Yes, good work seeing this connection. From the
view of benefit, a correct ethical action is
one that benefits all ethical
entities involved. “Benefit” falls within the context of
actions functionality determined in the context
of each ethical
entity’s pursuit of a good life – again, being
a life that is both desirable and beneficial to
the one living the life.
Okay, I thinkI’ve got it. But my next question is
if philosophy is the pursuit of truth,
not just my individual opinion
or personal view of truth. And ethical is the
branch of philosophy which studies the
truth of the way my action
choices relate to the good life of all involved in
the situation. How am I supposed to determine
the true good life
of the person that I am considering? How can I
make sure that my idea of their good life is
not biased or partial
to my own opinion or experiences?
Another greatquestion, but before we move forward
let’s briefly review. I thinkit will help us to
answer this question by
being prepared for the next stageof inquiry into
ethical action evaluation.
Our discussion so far today has focused on
the key characteristics of ethical behavior and its

79. relationship to specific
ethical acts. Since ethical actions arise, and
play out, in an interpersonal interactive
situation, the standard with which
we, as an actor/evaluator, evaluate the correctness
of an ethical action cannot be biased,
partial or unbalanced. That is
to say, in ethics and action evaluation
standard cannot be based merely on the
singular persons involved identified in
their induvial state. Instead, the ethical action
evaluation standard must recognize the
interpersonal interactive nature
of the situation in which its actions will be
situated. Such a standard must be inclusive of all
persons involved, and it
must include them in a way that recognizes the
value and worth of each entity in an
impartial manner. In being
impartial, it cannot showpartiality or favor to
any one ethical entity over another. Such a
standard arises in the context
of ethical behavior, which involves not only
character of the chosen actions, but also it
includes the ethical mindset of
the acting agent. This mind set is both
philosophical and ethical in so much as it
pursues the truth of our action choices
as they relate to the consideration of all the
ethical entities involved in the interpersonal,
interactive exchange. Being a
mindset of impartiality and balance, rather than
partiality and bias, “ethical consideration” allows
for each “person” to
be equally considered as having an interest in
the good life defined by his or her particular

80. existence.
All that sounds good but it is a lot to
take in.
It sure is. But with further study it will become
more familiar in both theory and practice. Now,
let’s get back to your
important question, “How are we to determine the
true good life of the person that we consider?”
For starters, an unbiased or impartial standard of
evaluation does not begin or end with a
discussion of “which” or
“whose.” It does not begin with a description of
abstract ideaslike “idea” or “opinion,” “fact”
or “reason,” “is” or
“should.” Nor does it begin or end with technical
explanations of “how” methodology. Instead,
intentionality itselfis at
the core of impartiality. And keep in mind that
impartiality can only arise from our desire to be
impartial.
Okay but that seems rather obvious. Of course,
you must want somethingbefore you start to pursue
it.
19

81. You are right. But make no mistake; while it
may be obvious that ethical consideration begins
in ethical intent in theory,
this may be the hardest part of philosophical ethics
to practice. It can be quitedifficult for us to
maintain our desire to
be ethical throughout all our interpersonal
interactions. But doing so is at the core of
ethical behavior and its
relationship to action choices. Let’sturn back to
“popular ethics” to help explain this.
Acting in an ethical manner generally is a
secondary goal from the “popular ethics” approach. In
“popular ethics” our
primary goal oftenis satisfaction of our self-interest,
but not to the pointwhere we cause harmto
another. Using this
approach, we oftenpursue our self-interests by default
and consider the interest of others as a
secondary issuewhen
facing an ethical situation. In the pure form of
philosophical ethical approach this would not be
the case. In philosophical
ethics, the goal of our ethical actions does not
yieldto self-interests in any way, shape, or
form. Our intention is to
pursue truth through our interactions and their
relationship to the overall context in which
they arise. And to do so
means that we must recognize the dynamic nature of
our actions as not only actions, but as they
appear in the world as
interpersonal interactions. And this recognition turns
our attention to the relationship between
metaphysical inquiry

82. and ethical evaluation.
Metaphysical Inquiry and Ethical Evaluation
By bringing our attention to the more subtle and
profound elements of the situation, metaphysical
inquiry can help
reveal an impartial standard with which we can
evaluate an ethical action. While metaphysical
inquiry will not
necessarily bring our attention to all the biases
of personal opinion, by going beyond a
surface-level perspective it goes a
long way in so doing. To further introduce
metaphysics let’s recap what we said about
the subject in our last class.
Metaphysics is the study of a thingin its
fundamental being. This means that metaphysics
studies our knowledge of
things in both their particular and transcendent states.
This “transcendent” element is of specific
importance in our
attempt to derive an impartial evaluation scale.
Wait, I have been thinking about this and I
am not sure what “transcendent” even means?
Okay, good. I am glad that you are asking
questions like this. In philosophy, thereare many
technical terms that will
come up. Many of them may be unfamiliar to
you. If they are, do not be afraid to ask
questions or turn to othersources,
like a dictionary or encyclopedia, for help. I know

83. of a few sources, so do not hesitate to
ask.
Now, to your question, “What is ‘transcendent’?”
“Transcendent” means that which transcends
a limit. Transcendence
oftenassociatedwith terms like beyond, or prior to. In
the case of metaphysics “transcendent” means to
go beyond the
limitations of a specific time or particular
instance.
So how does this transcendent element relate to
metaphysics?
To address this question, we need to clarify another
philosophical term – “principle” or “principled.”
Something is
“principled” when it universally applies to all
specific instances involved in a particular
category. We discover the
principles of an objects identity not only in the
object itself, but also as it relates to
otherobjects around it. General
principles emerge as the shared elements of an
objects identity as it relates to otherobjects
in its category. For example,
“being alive” is a designation that equally
and universally applies to all plants and
animals, while excluding rocks, air, and
soil. It is in this sense that “being alive” is
a principle of identity that applies to all
living entities, while excluding non-
living entities.

84. Now, in returning to metaphysics. As metaphysics
is a branch of philosophy that seeks
the truth of things not only in
their specific modes, but also in their first principles.
These first-principles are the universal elements
that serve as the
ground of an object’s identity. They are the ground
in so much as they are the first – or
primary – elements that
comprise the identity of a specific object. These
elements are principled in the sense that they
are elements of the
object’s identity that are shared with othersimilar
objects. These universal, first-principle elements
are oftencalled
“categorical forms” in philosophy. As we said
last time,thesecategorical forms constitute the
“isness” or the
20
fundamental features that make a thingwhat it is
and not somethingelse. These first principles were
exemplified in the
“deskness” and “cowness” we referred to last
session.
Oh, okay. I figured that this connects with
the “cowness” example we talked about
last time.
Yes, that is it. But keep in mind that metaphysics is
called the “first philosophy” because it is

85. the starting pointof all
inquiry, whether it be ethical in nature or
not. As metaphysical inquiry probes into the
concepts which associate with
things of our experiences, one could argue
that metaphysics is the study of concepts
and their association. These
concepts are the elements we use to identify the
object and evaluate the actions in which it
is included.
Wait. Are you saying that metaphysics is
the study of words?
Not exactly. When we speak about “words”
most of the time we merely pointto the written,
spoken or gestured
mnemonicdevices used to pointto things and their
identity. It isn’t that this notion is not correct,
but it may not go far
enough in explaining words as they relate to
metaphysical inquiry. Words are not merely
sounds or signsthat we use to
communicate ideas; they are tied to the very form
ideastake. That is to say, words and ideasare
very closein relation.
In fact, we could go as far as saying that
they are two sidesof the same coin. In order to
better explain this relationship,
it is important to note that words equally contain
elements of connotation and denotation.
“Connotation” refers to the
way we use words in common language, while
“denotation” points to the meaning of words.
The former addresses the
appearance of the words in language use, while

86. the latter addresses the anchor or ground of
their appearance.
I have heard of “connotation” and “denotation”
before but I did not know what they meant.
So how do they
connect to metaphysical inquiry?
It is the denotative element of words that
we are primarily concerned with in metaphysical
inquiry. This is because the
denotative element reveals the way words relate
to concepts, and concepts are of central
importance in metaphysical
inquiry. Why? Because concepts are the building
blocks of our knowledge of things. All
knowledge is conceptual. Or to
be more specific, when we claim to know
something, we claim to understand the
concepts that apply to the object of
knowledge. Whether or not we communicate such
knowledge to others, all knowledge comes
in the form of concepts.
I thinkI get the general idea here but I am
not sure that I completely understand the
claim that all knowledge is
conceptual. Could you further explain?
Sure. Let’slook at a specific example to
illustrate this principle. Take the “Bessy the cow”
example we discussed before.