ethics and morality argumentative essay

48 Philosophy and Ethics Argumentative Essay Topics

Here are some interesting philosophy paper topics and ethics essay topics for you. These topics are rather general and are not meant for students majoring in philosophy. Philosophy paper topics may be also created by choosing a theory or a philosopher and asking how justified the proposed ideas are.

Likewise, you may investigate the ethical aspects surrounding any human practice to create an ethics essay topic.  You can also take the historical perspective and claim that particular philosophical or ethical beliefs or convictions had a rather positive or negative effect on its time.

1. Are people good or evil by nature?

2. Does free will exist? Should the notion of free will be reconsidered?  Review of credible sources on the topic. 

3. Does the belief in God change a person?

4. Is science compatible/incompatible with religion? (Consider creation and evolution in particular)

5. Argue for or against utilitarianism.

6. Argue for or against psychological/ethical egoism.

7. Are morals relative to culture or  society ?

8. Do moral facts exist?

9. Should philosophers be invited to consider the future of technological development?

10. Do moral rules enslave people? Can people violate moral rules to achieve a common good? Critically evaluate Machiavelli’s ideas.

11. What theory explaining the drivers of human behavior is the most convincing?

12. Is morality related to the level of education of a person?

13. The research shows people have inborn capacities, which largely determine educational attainment. Should this affect the educational system? Does this justify a class system?

14. Should genetic engineering humans be legal?  Review of credible sources on the topic .

15. Should euthanasia be legal?

16.  Is abortion morally wrong?

17. Can capital punishment be legal? Should a convict be allowed to decide whether to serve a life sentence or accept the death penalty?

18. Should the personal use of drugs be legal?

19. Can mass surveillance be justified?  Review of credible sources on the topic. 

20. Is cloning ethically permissible?

21. Is there a moral obligation to be honest?

22. Is it ethical to use drugs to enhance cognition? Is it compatible with the use of steroids in sports?

23. Can charity be considered a moral obligation? Should it be considered an obligation of the wealthy people?

24. Do developed countries have a moral responsibility to address the issue of hunger in the world?

25. Do democratic states have a moral right/moral obligation to overthrow/help overthrow dictatorship/eliminate oppression in some states?

26. Who should decide whether to place an elderly in the elderly center: an elderly person himself/herself, children, healthcare specialist?

27. Can a person be denied a place in the hall of fame, etc. for demonstrating low moral standards?

28. Should the wealthy countries assume responsibility for organ trafficking business in developing states?  Review of credible sources on the topic. 

29. Should products manufactured with the use of child labor/in conditions detrimental to people’s health bear a special notification?

30. Is there a moral duty to care for the environment? Should environment awareness be treated as a virtue?

31. Is it ethical to have zoos and circuses?

32. Is it ethical to use animals’ fur and skin? Should the fur industry be regulated/banned overall? Should free relationships be considered immoral?

33. Is it ethical to invest in operations for pets if people in developing countries lack basic health care?

34. Is it ethical to use embryos in genetic engineering research?  Review of credible sources on the topic. 

35. Is it ethical to produce “designer babies”?  Review of credible sources on the topic. 

36. Should the state consider moral aspects of the  policy  when implementing it? What should overweight: morality or economic benefits?

37. Should people face legal responsibility for failing on the moral rules? (Consider if it is normal that people are punished for treason but not for cheating, what consequences the refusal to help can have).

38. Should patriotism be considered a virtue? (see other  patriotism essay topics and ideas )

39. Should violent and offensive content be removed from the Internet? Who should decide what content is offensive?

40. Has feminism as a movement achieved all its goals? Is there currently equality between the sexes?

41. The ethics of feminism. Consider both the equality and freedom issues and the traditional virtues of women. Is feminism somehow opposed to religion?

42. Should white Americans hold responsibility for the disadvantaged position of black Americans?

43. Is ageism a real thing? How should it be tackled?

44. Are the existing policies adequately protecting people from discrimination?

45. Should hate speech on the Internet and  social media sites  be censored? Should there be a legal responsibility for hate speech?

46. Should the state be allowed to censor the creative work of the artists: films, exhibitions, books, etc.?

47. What is the ethics behind Bitcoin: lower costs to end-users or money laundering?

48.  Ethical questions that surround Covid-19  and the response to the pandemic.

Yes, send me the checklist and occasional useful content and offers

Please check your inbox – the Checklist must be waiting for you there! If it did not get into that scary Spam folder…

Good Transition Words for Essays: Enhancing Coherence and Flow

50 Problem Solution Essay Topics for College Students

50 Process Essay Topics for High School and College Students

Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros, Cons, and Structure Tips for an Essay

How to Quote in an Essay: A Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

The American Dream Essay: Best Topics and Controversies to Consider

180 Ethics Topics & Ethical Questions to Debate

Our code of ethics is derived from what we think is right or wrong. On top of that, we have to agree to the moral standards established by the society we live in. Conventional norms generally label theft, murder, or harassment as bad. However, there are many influences that impact our considerations and understanding of ethics.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies moral issues. This article outlines the three different types of ethics and presents a list of compelling ethics topics for essays and research papers, as well as ethical questions to debate.

You don’t know how to write about ethics or which ethical argument topic to choose for your paper? Maybe your assignment deadline is dreadfully looming over you? Our custom writing service is happy to help you craft a fantastic essay on ethics whenever the need arises.

🔝 Top 10 Ethical Topics

• 🧑🤝🧑Types of Ethics
• 🤔 Ethical Issues
• 🖥️ Computer Ethics
• 🧬 Bioethics
• 🚓👮 Criminal Justice
• ⚖️ Ethical Dilemmas

⭐ Top 10 Ethics Topics to Debate

😈 ethical questions to debate, 🔍 references.

• Religious beliefs vs. medical care
• Issues behind unpaid internships
• Toxic environment at the workplace
• The dilemma of reporting an accident
• Should one’s political leanings be private?
• The limits of doctor-patient confidentiality
• Is it ethical to pay children for good grades?
• Ethics at the workplace and discrimination
• Should social media be allowed at the workplace?
• Promotion of environmental responsibility in business

🧑🤝🧑 Types of Ethics

Modern philosophy splits ethics into three groups: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

• The core question of metaethics is: “What is morality, and where does it come from?” It is also concerned with the emergence of human values, motivation, and reasoning.
• Normative ethics seeks to answer the question, “How should I act?” An example of a normative moral theory is Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law . In other words: be kind.
• Applied ethics seeks to apply moral considerations into real-life controversial subjects. Its contents can vary greatly and touch bioethics as well as criminal justice. It studies specific actions and practices from the point of moral acceptance.

However, ethics does not end with these three types. Over the centuries, philosophers have proposed various ethical theories. Their four general categories are deontological, utilitarian, right, and virtue ethics.

• A deontologist is a person with a set of moral duties from which they will not adhere. When faced with an ethical conflict, they will always act according to their self-proclaimed obligations.
• For a utilitarian , a decision needs to yield the greatest benefit for the majority.
• If rights are the root of an ethical theory, these are the highest priority. A person’s rights can either be established in a society by law or bestowed from one individual upon another.
• Judging someone by virtue means considering a person’s character rather than their actions. Here, an individual’s reputation, motivation, and ethics play a crucial role.

Now that you know the basics, you have the perfect ground to start your ethics essay.

🤔 Ethical Topics for an Essay

Ethical issues are situations in which an individual needs to evaluate which course of action is morally right. Essays on this topic shine a light on difficult questions. Therefore, students need to defend their position convincingly.

• Discuss what we should do about climate change. 
• What are the moral problems surrounding abortion? 
• Can we still justify eating meat?
• Investigate the use of plastic in the beauty industry.
• Is it unethical to be extremely rich?
• Should you buy Nestlé products despite the fact that the company privatizes water?
• Is the unequal distribution of wealth unethical?
• Discuss how workplace ethics should take sexism into account.
• What can we do to combat racism? 
• Why are LGBT+ people discriminated against?
• Should euthanasia be legal? 
• Can war be ethical?
• Should schools punish students for attending the Fridays for Future protests?
• Would drug use be unethical if it were legal?
• Explain the moral problems that come with automating jobs.

• Is it ethical to hire someone to do assignments for you?
• How far should everyone’s right to privacy go?
• Is using animals for scientific testing unethical?
• How should governments deal with refugees ?
• Discuss the carbon impact of having children.
• Can modern societies still be held accountable for what their nation did in the past?
• Analyze the benefits and disadvantages of universal income.
• How much control should the state have on the press?
• Should schools teach religion?
• What are ethical concerns regarding downloading media from the internet?

🖥️ Computer Ethics Essay Topics

The advent of information technology has altered every aspect of our lives. Computer ethics applies traditional moral theories to everything surrounding computers and cyber security. The list below contains enthralling ethical topics concerned with the realm of computing.

• How much work should we leave entirely to computers?
• Discuss the dangers of storing vulnerable data online.
• Are computers secure enough to contain so much information about our lives?
• Discuss if hacking can be morally justified.
• Examine privacy-related concerns regarding computers .
• Should all software be free?
• How can you legitimize the possession of a computer algorithm patent?
• What can be done to prevent cyberbullying? 
• Investigate the moral effects anonymity has on internet users.
• Whose laws apply if you wish to protect your rights online?
• Discuss how the necessity to own a computer impacts poorer nations and people.
• Which ethical problems can people face due to the internet’s possibilities?
• When is sabotaging another person’s computer justified?
• Analyze the social responsibility that comes with developing new software.
• Are computer crimes less harmful than crimes against humans?
• Who owns information that is distributed online?
• What is more important: easy accessibility or privacy?
• Investigate the moral problems associated with AI.
• If a computer makes a critical mistake, whose fault is it?
• Discuss the importance of netiquette.
• How should tech companies deal with ethical problems?
• Can AI algorithms ensure ethical behavior?
• Why do tech companies need ethics boards?
• Which ethical conflicts appear when using drones?
• Investigate racial bias in facial recognition systems.

🏅 Sports Ethics Topics for a Paper

Morality in sports is based on integrity, respect, responsibility, and fairness. Often, this puts athletes into a dilemma: do I want to be ethical, or do I want to win? Answering these questions is not always easy. The following list compiles sports topics for a research paper on ethics.

• What are moral complications when using enhancement drugs?
• Is gamesmanship unethical?
• How important is ethics in sports?
• Discuss the moral responsibilities of athletes .
• What are ethical reasons to pay college athletes? 
• Investigate the ethical implications of kneeling for the national anthem .
• Can college sports and the principles of higher education go hand in hand?
• Investigate the sexist bias in sports.
• Was it selfish when the American female soccer team went to court to demand equal pay?

• What moral obligations do universities have towards their athletes?
• When can you justify cheating?
• Concerning the environment, how can professional sports events be ethical?
• Which ethical issues do healthcare workers have concerning sportspeople?
• Which moral duties do teams’ coaches have?
• Are the extremely high salaries of sports professionals justified?
• In 2003, the Olympics abolished the wild card system. Was that fair?
• Because of the Paralympics, disabled athletes cannot take part in the real Olympics. Is that discriminatory?
• Discuss how money influences the fairness of a sport.
• Debate if and how children are exploited to become elite athletes.
• Which moral duties should a good sport follow?
• How much should parents get involved in their child’s physical education?
• Investigate if everyday codes of ethics should apply to sports.
• Discuss the ethical implications of motorsports.
• Who is responsible if a player gets injured?
• Are referees always fair?

🧬 Bioethics Topics for an Essay

Bioethics comes into play when we talk about life and health. It expands from genetics to neurology and even plastic surgery. In the name of the common good, researchers often find themselves in conflicting positions. This makes bioethics an especially exciting topic to write about.

• Discuss the moral conflicts of genetic engineering .
• What are the ethical responsibilities associated with using CRISPR ?
• Investigate the problems of stem cell research. 
• When can humans be used for drug testing ?
• Should vaccinations be mandatory for everyone?
• Investigate the ethics that apply to a medical worker.
• Discuss the harmful effects of plastic surgery .
• Should a person who is brain dead be kept alive?
• Is it just that medical care is linked to an individual’s ability to pay?
• Should everyone be an organ donor by default?
• What is more important: a person’s right to privacy or the information of at-risk relatives?
• Is prenatal invasive testing ethical?
• Should neuroenhancement drugs be legal?
• Discuss ethical conflicts concerning Disclosure and Barring Service.
• Is it ethical to improve memory functions with brain stimulation?
• Analyze the ethical issues concerning precision medicine.
• What are the problems of surrogacy ?
• Should medical personnel collect healthy tissues of a deceased person without their consent?

• What should be done with the child of a brain-dead pregnant woman?
• How important is a subject’s anonymity during research?
• Discuss the ethics of shared decision-making .
• How much responsibility do mentally challenged people carry for their actions?
• Was Sweden right not to impose strict lockdown rules during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• To what extent are businesses responsible for their employees’ health?
• Should universal healthcare be free? 

🚓👮 Criminal Justice Ethics Topics to Write About

Law enforcers should always act ethically. Unfortunately, it is not always the case. Police officers and attorneys often end up in morally ambiguous situations. In many cases, they don’t do what the public deems the right thing. Below are the examples of criminal justice ethics topics.

• When is it legitimate for a police officer to use violence?
• How can an officer remain impartial?
• Should law enforcement visibly wear guns in public?
• How much force is too much?
• Investigate possible ethical implications associated with true crime podcasts.
• Should prostitution be legal in the US?
• How ethical is interrogation ?
• Can torture be justified?
• Discuss the ethical consequences of lying when working in criminal justice .
• Is working undercover deception?
• Debate whether it is an American citizen’s moral duty to participate in jury duty.
• Should the police be allowed to access everyone’s data?
• Discuss the moral complications of “innocent until proven guilty.”
• Should convicted pedophiles be allowed to see their children?
• Can teaching ethics at schools prevent crime?
• Analyze ethical problems of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
• Should NATO have become involved in America’s Afghan war?
• What are the ethical implications of shooter drills at school?
• Was Edward Snowden morally in the wrong?
• How should we deal with child soldiers?
• Discuss if the prosecution of Julian Assange is justified.
• Examine the ethical problems of private prisons. 
• What moral obligations should someone consider when granting prisoners the right to work?
• When is capital punishment justified?
• Is it ethical to incarcerate juvenile offenders ?

⚖️ Ethical Dilemma Topics to Write About

An ethical issue becomes a dilemma when different moral standards clash with each other. In this situation, it is impossible to find a path to an ethically permissible solution that is unambiguous. The following sample topics are a solid base to start a discussion on morals.

• Should parents watch over what their children do on the internet?
• Would you report an accident you caused if there are no witnesses?
• What should a doctor do if a patient refuses life-saving treatment for religious reasons?
• Should you turn down a client if their political views do not match yours?
• Would you promote something you are not convinced of to get money?
• Should you lie to land a job that gets you out of poverty?

• Your partner cheated on you. Now, you get the chance to take your revenge with someone you really like. Would you do it?
• Should students use automated writing tools like free thesis generators , summarizers, and paraphrasers?
• Your teacher is continuously mocking your classmate. You are a teacher’s pet. Would you speak up?
• Your son likes to wear dresses. One day, he asks if he can wear one to school. Will you let him?
• You are very religious. Your daughter wants to get married to another woman and invites you to her wedding. What will you do?
• Prenatal testing showed that your unborn child has a disability. Would you terminate pregnancy?
• You are in a long-term relationship. Suddenly, your partner gets a job offer in another part of the world. What would you do?
• You have a terminal illness. This makes you a financial burden to your relatives. Are you obliged towards them to quit your treatment?
• You have a red and a blue candy bar. Blue is your favorite, but you also know that it’s your friend’s favorite. Will you give it to them?
• A friend asked you for a loan. Since then, they have not given you anything back. They are still not wholly stable financially. Will you ask them to return the money?
• Your grandma passed away and bequeathed her favorite mink coat to you. You are a vegan. What do you do?
• A few years ago, you borrowed a gun from a friend. Now, they ask for it back, but their mental state seems to be rapidly deteriorating. This makes you scared they are going to shoot someone, or themselves. What do you do?
• You find out that your friend cheats on their spouse. You are close friends with their family. Will you tell on them?
• For your birthday, your friend gave you a sweater they’ve made themselves. You think it’s ugly. Do you tell them?
• You are a vegan . Should you buy vegan products which are highly problematic to produce?
• You are in a restaurant. Your order arrives too late. The waitress looks stressed. Will you make her take it back?
• You went to the store and bought a new, expensive item. The clerk gives you too much change. Do you give it back?
• You are walking with a friend and find $50 on the floor. Would you share it with them?
• Your child firmly believes in Santa Claus. One Christmas , they start suspecting that he is not real. What do you do?
• Is having pets ethical?
• Can eating meat be justified?
• Should we defund the police?
• Should atomic bombs be banned?
• Can discrimination be justified?
• Is it ethical to ask someone’s age?
• Should children get paid for chores?
• Is it unprofessional to send voice messages?
• Should children be allowed to vote?
• Should influencers promote products they don’t use?
• Should there be any limitations to doctor and patient confidentiality?
• Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?
• Can teenagers get plastic surgery?
• What to do when you find out that your relative has committed an offense?
• What to do when you see your friend cheating on the exam?
• Should sportsmen be paid more than teachers?
• Should gender quotas be used during parliamentary elections?
• Do companies have the right to collect information about their customers?
• Can politicians appeal to religious issues during electoral campaigns?
• Should fake news be censored in a democratic society?

We hope that in this list you’ve found the ethics topic that fits you the best. Good luck with your assignment!

Further reading:

• 430 Philosophy Topics & Questions for Your Essay
• 226 Research Topics on Criminal Justice & Criminology
• 512 Research Topics on HumSS (Humanities & Social Sciences)
• 204 Research Topics on Technology & Computer Science
• What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?: Britannica
• What is Ethics?: Santa Clara University
• Ethics: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Metaethics: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Ethical Issues: Idaho State University
• The Problem with AI Ethics: The Verge
• Sports Ethics: Santa Clara University
• What Is Bioethics?: Michigan State University
• Ethics in Criminal Justice: Campbellsville University
• Kant’s Formula of Universal Law: Harvard University
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

A definition explains the meaning of a term or a concept. In a dictionary, you’ll find a definition in a single sentence. A definition paper, however, encompasses several paragraphs. Such an essay, amongst other things, can include personal experience and examples. To write a successful definition paper, you need to...

As simple as it is, the purpose of the descriptive essay is to explain or portray its subject. It can focus on any topic or issue you want to write about. Be sure that any middle school, high school, or college student can manage this type of creative writing assignment!...

Rhetorical analysis essay focuses on assessing the method used for delivering a message. This assignment isn’t about giving an opinion on the topic. The purpose is to analyze how the author presents the argument and whether or not they succeeded. Keep reading to find out more strategies and prompts for...

A narrative essay tells a story about a series of events. At the core of this kind of essay can be a personal experience or a fictional plot. Any story can be a basis for a narrative essay! Narratives can look similar to descriptions. Still, they are different. A descriptive...

Similar to the instructions in a recipe book, process essays convey information in a step-by-step format. In this type of paper, you follow a structured chronological process. You can also call it a how-to essay. A closely related type is a process analysis essay. Here you have to carefully consider...

In a classification essay, you divide the subject into categories. To create these categories, you single out certain attributes of things. You can classify them according to their characteristics, themes, or traits. Sounds complicated? Be sure that any high school or college student can manage this type of essay!

Throughout your high school years, you are likely to write many evaluative papers. In an evaluation essay you aim is to justify your point of view through evidence.

Immigration is a permanent move to a foreign country. It takes place all over the globe, including the United States. It played an important role in history, and it continues to influence society today. This article offers a variety of immigration essay topics. They are suitable for college-level works, as...

Should you buy a green or a red apple? Before making a decision, people often compare their options. In a compare and contrast essay, you analyze the similarities and differences between certain things. In this article, you’ll find interesting and easy compare and contrast essay topics for college, high school...

An opinion essay requires a student to present a point of view on a chosen subject and back it up with substantial evidence. Like in a debate, the writer has to give their opinion and defend it while using scholarly resources. This article will help you find a good opinion...

It would be great if economics in college would just teach you how to save and make money. In reality, however, students usually write research papers on micro- and macroeconomics topics to learn about the production and consumption of goods on an international level.

The corporate world is the world of the future – there’s no doubt about that. And education in ABM will help you conquer it! What is ABM strand, exactly? ABM stands for Accountancy, Business, and Management. Future leaders and entrepreneurs pursue education in this field to learn the skills essential...

Written Business Communication

Argumentative Essay on an Ethical Issue | Writing Guide

For every member of academia, the art of persuasive writing holds paramount importance. Among the various genres of writing, crafting an argumentative essay on ethical issue demands a nuanced approach that combines critical thinking, logical reasoning, and ethical analysis. This guide aims to provide a comprehensive roadmap for mastering this skill, empowering writers to articulate their perspectives effectively and ethically.

Understanding the Ethical Landscape for Argumentative Essay on Ethical Issue

Before writing an argumentative essay on ethical issue, it is crucial to develop a profound understanding of the ethical landscape surrounding the chosen topic. Ethical issues permeate various facets of human existence, encompassing dilemmas related to morality, justice, rights, and responsibilities. Whether addressing topics such as environmental sustainability, healthcare access, or technological advancements, writers must navigate the complexities of ethical reasoning with clarity and precision.

Choosing a Relevant Ethical Issue for Argumentative Essay on Ethical Issue

Selecting a pertinent ethical issue forms the cornerstone of a compelling argumentative essay. Writers should identify topics that resonate with their interests, align with their values, and spark meaningful discourse within academic or societal contexts. Additionally, opting for contemporary issues ensures relevance and enhances the essay’s impact by addressing pressing concerns in today’s world.

Conducting In-Depth Research

To substantiate their arguments effectively, writers must conduct comprehensive research to gather relevant evidence, statistics, and scholarly sources. Exploring diverse perspectives enables writers to develop a nuanced understanding of the ethical issue at hand, fostering empathy and intellectual rigor. Moreover, engaging with primary sources, empirical studies, and expert opinions enhances the credibility and persuasiveness of the essay’s arguments.

Structuring the Argumentative Essay

A well-structured essay serves as a scaffold for presenting arguments coherently and persuasively. Following a traditional essay structure comprising an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion facilitates clarity and organization. The introduction should provide a compelling overview of the ethical issue, contextualize its significance, and present a clear thesis statement that encapsulates the writer’s stance.

Developing Persuasive Arguments

The body paragraphs constitute the heart of the essay, where writers expound upon their arguments with logical reasoning and compelling evidence. Each paragraph should focus on a distinct aspect or subtopic, supported by relevant examples, case studies, or empirical data. Employing logical fallacies should be avoided, as they undermine the credibility of the argument and detract from the essay’s persuasive power.

Acknowledging Counterarguments

A hallmark of scholarly integrity is the acknowledgment and refutation of counterarguments. By anticipating opposing viewpoints and addressing them thoughtfully, writers demonstrate intellectual honesty and rigor. Refuting counterarguments strengthens the essay’s credibility and underscores the writer’s ability to engage critically with differing perspectives, thereby enriching the discourse surrounding the ethical issue.

Buy 119+ Effective Business Letter Samples here.

Appealing to Ethical Principles

Central to crafting an argumentative essay on ethical issues is the incorporation of ethical principles and frameworks. Drawing upon established ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, or ethical relativism provides a theoretical lens through which to analyze and evaluate the moral dimensions of the issue. Writers should elucidate how their arguments align with ethical principles and contribute to ethical decision-making processes.

Writing or creating an argumentative essay on ethical issues requires diligence, critical thinking, and ethical discernment. By selecting relevant topics, conducting thorough research, structuring arguments coherently, and appealing to ethical principles, writers can elucidate their perspectives effectively and contribute meaningfully to ethical discourse. Ultimately, the potency of an argumentative essay lies not only in its persuasive force but also in its ethical integrity and commitment to fostering dialogue and understanding in complex ethical terrain.

Argumentative Essay on Ethical Issue Example

Introduction | argumentative essay on ethical issue.

Our lives are full of complexities and rapid advancements, so the importance of ethical considerations cannot be overstated. Ethical behavior forms the cornerstone of a civilized society, guiding individuals and institutions towards actions that prioritize morality and human welfare. However, as ethical dilemmas continue to surface in various spheres of life, it becomes crucial to reiterate the significance of upholding ethical standards to foster a just and equitable world.

Body Paragraph 1 | Argumentative Essay on Ethical Issue

First and foremost, embracing ethical principles ensures the protection of individual rights and dignity. In an era marked by technological innovation and globalization, issues such as data privacy, human rights abuses, and corporate responsibility have come to the forefront. Ethical conduct serves as a safeguard against exploitation and discrimination, guaranteeing that all members of society are treated fairly and with respect. Without adherence to ethical standards, the vulnerable risk being marginalized and oppressed, undermining the very fabric of democracy and social justice.

Body Paragraph 2

Moreover, ethical behavior fosters trust and integrity within communities and institutions. Whether in the realm of business, politics, or personal relationships, honesty and transparency form the bedrock of meaningful interactions. When individuals and organizations prioritize ethical considerations, they cultivate a culture of trustworthiness and accountability, strengthening social cohesion and fostering mutual respect. Conversely, a lack of ethical integrity breeds cynicism and disillusionment, eroding public confidence in institutions and hindering collaborative efforts towards progress and prosperity.

Body Paragraph 3

Furthermore, ethical decision-making is essential for addressing pressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. From climate change to socioeconomic inequality, the issues confronting humanity are inherently ethical in nature, requiring collective action and moral leadership. By prioritizing ethical values such as environmental stewardship, social equity, and intergenerational justice, societies can chart a course towards a more sustainable and inclusive future. Failure to integrate ethical considerations into policymaking and governance processes not only exacerbates existing disparities but also jeopardizes the well-being of future generations.

Body Paragraph 4: Counterargument and Refutation

Despite the compelling arguments in favor of ethical conduct, some may contend that pragmatic concerns or competitive pressures justify compromising on ethical principles. However, this perspective fails to recognize that short-term gains achieved through unethical means often lead to long-term consequences that undermine societal cohesion and individual well-being. Moreover, history has repeatedly demonstrated that ethical lapses, whether in business, politics, or personal conduct, ultimately exact a heavy toll on both individuals and societies, eroding trust and sowing the seeds of discord.

In conclusion, ethical considerations are not merely a luxury but a necessity in navigating the complexities of the modern world. Upholding ethical principles safeguards individual rights, fosters trust and integrity, and addresses global challenges in a manner that promotes human flourishing and societal well-being. As individuals and as a society, we must reaffirm our commitment to ethical conduct, recognizing that our actions today shape the world of tomorrow. Let us embrace the imperative of ethical considerations, not as a constraint but as a guiding beacon towards a more just, compassionate, and sustainable future.

Related Posts

Rejection Letter Sample

Resume Examples That Win the Job

Cover Letter

Resignation Letter Samples | Concise and Polite

Circular Letter Sample

Order Letter Sample

Invitation Letter Sample

Adjustment Letter Sample

Ten Best Books for Construction Business Owners

Best Books to Improve Communication Skills in English

Writing an Argumentative Essay about Fire Prevention

Creating an Engaging Cause and Effect Essay

Argumentative Essay on Social Media

See Story elements here.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Essay Guides
• Other Essays
• How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An ethics essay is a type of academic writing that explores ethical issues and dilemmas. Students should evaluates them in terms of moral principles and values. The purpose of an ethics essay is to examine the moral implications of a particular issue, and provide a reasoned argument in support of an ethical perspective.

Writing an essay about ethics is a tough task for most students. The process involves creating an outline to guide your arguments about a topic and planning your ideas to convince the reader of your feelings about a difficult issue. If you still need assistance putting together your thoughts in composing a good paper, you have come to the right place. We have provided a series of steps and tips to show how you can achieve success in writing. This guide will tell you how to write an ethics paper using ethical essay examples to understand every step it takes to be proficient. In case you don’t have time for writing, get in touch with our professional essay writers for hire . Our experts work hard to supply students with excellent essays.

What Is an Ethics Essay?

An ethics essay uses moral theories to build arguments on an issue. You describe a controversial problem and examine it to determine how it affects individuals or society. Ethics papers analyze arguments on both sides of a possible dilemma, focusing on right and wrong. The analysis gained can be used to solve real-life cases. Before embarking on writing an ethical essay, keep in mind that most individuals follow moral principles. From a social context perspective, these rules define how a human behaves or acts towards another. Therefore, your theme essay on ethics needs to demonstrate how a person feels about these moral principles. More specifically, your task is to show how significant that issue is and discuss if you value or discredit it.

Purpose of an Essay on Ethics

The primary purpose of an ethics essay is to initiate an argument on a moral issue using reasoning and critical evidence. Instead of providing general information about a problem, you present solid arguments about how you view the moral concern and how it affects you or society. When writing an ethical paper, you demonstrate philosophical competence, using appropriate moral perspectives and principles.

Things to Write an Essay About Ethics On

Before you start to write ethics essays, consider a topic you can easily address. In most cases, an ethical issues essay analyzes right and wrong. This includes discussing ethics and morals and how they contribute to the right behaviors. You can also talk about work ethic, code of conduct, and how employees promote or disregard the need for change. However, you can explore other areas by asking yourself what ethics mean to you. Think about how a recent game you watched with friends started a controversial argument. Or maybe a newspaper that highlighted a story you felt was misunderstood or blown out of proportion. This way, you can come up with an excellent topic that resonates with your personal ethics and beliefs.

Ethics Paper Outline

Sometimes, you will be asked to submit an outline before writing an ethics paper. Creating an outline for an ethics paper is an essential step in creating a good essay. You can use it to arrange your points and supporting evidence before writing. It also helps organize your thoughts, enabling you to fill any gaps in your ideas. The outline for an essay should contain short and numbered sentences to cover the format and outline. Each section is structured to enable you to plan your work and include all sources in writing an ethics paper. An ethics essay outline is as follows:

• Background information
• Thesis statement
• Restate thesis statement
• Summarize key points
• Final thoughts on the topic

Using this outline will improve clarity and focus throughout your writing process.

Ethical Essay Structure

Ethics essays are similar to other essays based on their format, outline, and structure. An ethical essay should have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion section as its structure. When planning your ideas, make sure that the introduction and conclusion are around 20 percent of the paper, leaving the rest to the body. We will take a detailed look at what each part entails and give examples that are going to help you understand them better.  Refer to our essay structure examples to find a fitting way of organizing your writing.

Ethics Paper Introduction

An ethics essay introduction gives a synopsis of your main argument. One step on how to write an introduction for an ethics paper is telling about the topic and describing its background information. This paragraph should be brief and straight to the point. It informs readers what your position is on that issue. Start with an essay hook to generate interest from your audience. It can be a question you will address or a misunderstanding that leads up to your main argument. You can also add more perspectives to be discussed; this will inform readers on what to expect in the paper.

Ethics Essay Introduction Example

You can find many ethics essay introduction examples on the internet. In this guide, we have written an excellent extract to demonstrate how it should be structured. As you read, examine how it begins with a hook and then provides background information on an issue. 

Imagine living in a world where people only lie, and honesty is becoming a scarce commodity. Indeed, modern society is facing this reality as truth and deception can no longer be separated. Technology has facilitated a quick transmission of voluminous information, whereas it's hard separating facts from opinions.

In this example, the first sentence of the introduction makes a claim or uses a question to hook the reader.

Ethics Essay Thesis Statement

An ethics paper must contain a thesis statement in the first paragraph. Learning how to write a thesis statement for an ethics paper is necessary as readers often look at it to gauge whether the essay is worth their time.

When you deviate away from the thesis, your whole paper loses meaning. In ethics essays, your thesis statement is a roadmap in writing, stressing your position on the problem and giving reasons for taking that stance. It should focus on a specific element of the issue being discussed. When writing a thesis statement, ensure that you can easily make arguments for or against its stance.

Ethical Paper Thesis Example

Look at this example of an ethics paper thesis statement and examine how well it has been written to state a position and provide reasons for doing so:

The moral implications of dishonesty are far-reaching as they undermine trust, integrity, and other foundations of society, damaging personal and professional relationships. 

The above thesis statement example is clear and concise, indicating that this paper will highlight the effects of dishonesty in society. Moreover, it focuses on aspects of personal and professional relationships.

Ethics Essay Body

The body section is the heart of an ethics paper as it presents the author's main points. In an ethical essay, each body paragraph has several elements that should explain your main idea. These include:

• A topic sentence that is precise and reiterates your stance on the issue.
• Evidence supporting it.
• Examples that illustrate your argument.
• A thorough analysis showing how the evidence and examples relate to that issue.
• A transition sentence that connects one paragraph to another with the help of essay transitions .

When you write an ethics essay, adding relevant examples strengthens your main point and makes it easy for others to understand and comprehend your argument. 

Body Paragraph for Ethics Paper Example

A good body paragraph must have a well-defined topic sentence that makes a claim and includes evidence and examples to support it. Look at part of an example of ethics essay body paragraph below and see how its idea has been developed:

Honesty is an essential component of professional integrity. In many fields, trust and credibility are crucial for professionals to build relationships and success. For example, a doctor who is dishonest about a potential side effect of a medication is not only acting unethically but also putting the health and well-being of their patients at risk. Similarly, a dishonest businessman could achieve short-term benefits but will lose their client’s trust.

Ethics Essay Conclusion

A concluding paragraph shares the summary and overview of the author's main arguments. Many students need clarification on what should be included in the essay conclusion and how best to get a reader's attention. When writing an ethics paper conclusion, consider the following:

• Restate the thesis statement to emphasize your position.
• Summarize its main points and evidence.
• Final thoughts on the issue and any other considerations.

You can also reflect on the topic or acknowledge any possible challenges or questions that have not been answered. A closing statement should present a call to action on the problem based on your position.

Sample Ethics Paper Conclusion

The conclusion paragraph restates the thesis statement and summarizes the arguments presented in that paper. The sample conclusion for an ethical essay example below demonstrates how you should write a concluding statement.  

In conclusion, the implications of dishonesty and the importance of honesty in our lives cannot be overstated. Honesty builds solid relationships, effective communication, and better decision-making. This essay has explored how dishonesty impacts people and that we should value honesty. We hope this essay will help readers assess their behavior and work towards being more honest in their lives.

In the above extract, the writer gives final thoughts on the topic, urging readers to adopt honest behavior.

How to Write an Ethics Paper?

As you learn how to write an ethics essay, it is not advised to immediately choose a topic and begin writing. When you follow this method, you will get stuck or fail to present concrete ideas. A good writer understands the importance of planning. As a fact, you should organize your work and ensure it captures key elements that shed more light on your arguments. Hence, following the essay structure and creating an outline to guide your writing process is the best approach. In the following segment, we have highlighted step-by-step techniques on how to write a good ethics paper.

1. Pick a Topic

Before writing ethical papers, brainstorm to find ideal topics that can be easily debated. For starters, make a list, then select a title that presents a moral issue that may be explained and addressed from opposing sides. Make sure you choose one that interests you. Here are a few ideas to help you search for topics:

• Review current trends affecting people.
• Think about your personal experiences.
• Study different moral theories and principles.
• Examine classical moral dilemmas.

Once you find a suitable topic and are ready, start to write your ethics essay, conduct preliminary research, and ascertain that there are enough sources to support it.

2. Conduct In-Depth Research

Once you choose a topic for your essay, the next step is gathering sufficient information about it. Conducting in-depth research entails looking through scholarly journals to find credible material. Ensure you note down all sources you found helpful to assist you on how to write your ethics paper. Use the following steps to help you conduct your research:

• Clearly state and define a problem you want to discuss.
• This will guide your research process.
• Develop keywords that match the topic.
• Begin searching from a wide perspective. This will allow you to collect more information, then narrow it down by using the identified words above.

3. Develop an Ethics Essay Outline

An outline will ease up your writing process when developing an ethic essay. As you develop a paper on ethics, jot down factual ideas that will build your paragraphs for each section. Include the following steps in your process:

• Review the topic and information gathered to write a thesis statement.
• Identify the main arguments you want to discuss and include their evidence.
• Group them into sections, each presenting a new idea that supports the thesis.
• Write an outline.
• Review and refine it.

Examples can also be included to support your main arguments. The structure should be sequential, coherent, and with a good flow from beginning to end. When you follow all steps, you can create an engaging and organized outline that will help you write a good essay.

4. Write an Ethics Essay

Once you have selected a topic, conducted research, and outlined your main points, you can begin writing an essay . Ensure you adhere to the ethics paper format you have chosen. Start an ethics paper with an overview of your topic to capture the readers' attention. Build upon your paper by avoiding ambiguous arguments and using the outline to help you write your essay on ethics. Finish the introduction paragraph with a thesis statement that explains your main position.  Expand on your thesis statement in all essay paragraphs. Each paragraph should start with a topic sentence and provide evidence plus an example to solidify your argument, strengthen the main point, and let readers see the reasoning behind your stance. Finally, conclude the essay by restating your thesis statement and summarizing all key ideas. Your conclusion should engage the reader, posing questions or urging them to reflect on the issue and how it will impact them.

5. Proofread Your Ethics Essay

Proofreading your essay is the last step as you countercheck any grammatical or structural errors in your essay. When writing your ethic paper, typical mistakes you could encounter include the following:

• Spelling errors: e.g., there, they’re, their.
• Homophone words: such as new vs. knew.
• Inconsistencies: like mixing British and American words, e.g., color vs. color.
• Formatting issues: e.g., double spacing, different font types.

While proofreading your ethical issue essay, read it aloud to detect lexical errors or ambiguous phrases that distort its meaning. Verify your information and ensure it is relevant and up-to-date. You can ask your fellow student to read the essay and give feedback on its structure and quality.

Ethics Essay Examples

Writing an essay is challenging without the right steps. There are so many ethics paper examples on the internet, however, we have provided a list of free ethics essay examples below that are well-structured and have a solid argument to help you write your paper. Click on them and see how each writing step has been integrated. Ethics essay example 1

Ethics essay example 2

Ethics essay example 3

Ethics essay example 4

College ethics essay example 5

Ethics Essay Writing Tips

When writing papers on ethics, here are several tips to help you complete an excellent essay:

• Choose a narrow topic and avoid broad subjects, as it is easy to cover the topic in detail.
• Ensure you have background information. A good understanding of a topic can make it easy to apply all necessary moral theories and principles in writing your paper.
• State your position clearly. It is important to be sure about your stance as it will allow you to draft your arguments accordingly.
• When writing ethics essays, be mindful of your audience. Provide arguments that they can understand.
• Integrate solid examples into your essay. Morality can be hard to understand; therefore, using them will help a reader grasp these concepts.

Bottom Line on Writing an Ethics Paper

Creating this essay is a common exercise in academics that allows students to build critical skills. When you begin writing, state your stance on an issue and provide arguments to support your position. This guide gives information on how to write an ethics essay as well as examples of ethics papers. Remember to follow these points in your writing:

• Create an outline highlighting your main points.
• Write an effective introduction and provide background information on an issue.
• Include a thesis statement.
• Develop concrete arguments and their counterarguments, and use examples.
• Sum up all your key points in your conclusion and restate your thesis statement.

Contact our academic writing platform and have your challenge solved. Here, you can order essays and papers on any topic and enjoy top quality. 

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

You may also like

Find Study Materials for

• Explanations
• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Social Studies
• Browse all subjects
• Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

• Flashcards Create and find the best flashcards.
• Notes Create notes faster than ever before.
• Study Sets Everything you need for your studies in one place.
• Study Plans Stop procrastinating with our smart planner features.
• Ethical Arguments in Essays

Argumentative essays frequently address controversial ideas, like the effects of structural racism, whether abortion should be legal, and the morality of physician-assisted suicide. Often, a writer's argument for their paper will state whether the idea they are writing about is morally right or wrong. If argued from this perspective, these listed topics are examples of ethical arguments.

Create learning materials about Ethical Arguments in Essays with our free learning app!

• Instand access to millions of learning materials
• Flashcards, notes, mock-exams and more
• Everything you need to ace your exams
• 5 Paragraph Essay
• Argumentative Essay
• Emotional Arguments in Essays
• Logical Arguments in Essays
• The Argument
• Writing an Argumentative Essay
• Cues and Conventions
• English Grammar
• English Language Study
• Essay Prompts
• Essay Writing Skills
• Global English
• History of English Language
• International English
• Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics
• Language Acquisition
• Language Analysis
• Language and Social Groups
• Lexis and Semantics
• Linguistic Terms
• Listening and Speaking
• Multiple Choice Questions
• Research and Composition
• Rhetorical Analysis Essay
• Single Paragraph Essay
• Sociolinguistics
• Summary Text
• Synthesis Essay
• Textual Analysis

What is an Ethical Argument?

An ethical argument is a type of argument that evaluates whether an idea or proposal is morally right or wrong. An ethical argument is concerned with ethics , or the moral principles which guide a person’s behavior and beliefs.

Ethical argument: An argument based on ethics that evaluates whether an idea is morally right or wrong.

Ethics: Moral principles that guide a person's behavior and beliefs.

Writers use ethical arguments to convince a reader about the moral correctness of a topic. This type of argument can be effective if the audience shares the writer’s ethics.

To see how an author makes an ethical argument, read this passage from Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous speech “I Have a Dream." 1

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.

King makes an ethical argument about how the United States has failed to live up to its founding ideals in granting people of color political equality. King could use statistics or facts to make a logical argument. He could also use an anecdote about the racism he experienced to make an emotional argument. Instead, he makes an ethical argument about how the country is morally wrong by appealing to the moral principles from America’s founding documents.

Types of Ethical Arguments in Essays

There are two ways to construct an ethical argument in your paper: principles and consequences.

Ethical arguments from principles

One way to incorporate ethical arguments in your essay is from principles. Principles are the ideas that are the basis of ethical ideas and theories. When making an ethical argument, writers use principles from these different viewpoints:

Religious beliefs

Political ideologies, philosophical theories.

You can form a claim or thesis for an ethical argument essay from principles using the following template. 2

An act is right/wrong because it follows/violates principles A, B, and C.

Ethical arguments from consequences

You can also write ethical arguments based on consequences. To write an ethical argument from consequences, you would list and evaluate the positive and negative effects of an idea or proposal. If there are more positive effects, you would argue the idea or proposal is ethical. If there are more negative effects, you would argue the idea or proposal is not ethical.

You can form a thesis for an ethical argument essay based on consequences using the following template. 3

An act is right/wrong because it will lead to consequences A, B, and C, which are good/bad.

Examples of Ethical Arguments

Using the topic of whether the death penalty should be legal, let’s explore how and why a writer could construct different ethical arguments.

People’s religious beliefs and traditions inform their morality. Writers will use their religious beliefs to make an ethical argument because their beliefs help them to distinguish what is right and wrong. For example, you could argue against the death penalty in an essay using Christian teachings, which emphasize the ideas of forgiveness and mercy toward sinners. Your claim based on Christian principles might look like this thesis: the death penalty is wrong because it violates Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness and mercy.

A person’s political ideology can also help them make ethical arguments. People subscribe to differing political beliefs, such as liberalism, conservatism, feminism, socialism, or libertarianism. These ideas inform people’s moral beliefs about a topic by informing their views about human rights and the responsibility people have in addressing others’ needs. For example, you might use liberalism to argue against the death penalty. Liberalism promotes the idea that individuals have civil rights and liberties that the government should not violate. Following these beliefs, you could make this argument in your paper: the death penalty is wrong because it violates a person’s right to not experience cruel and unusual punishment .

People can make ethical arguments using ideas from philosophical theories. Many philosophers develop theories of ethics, and writers use these theories to create ethical arguments. You could use Kant’s ethics, which stated that punishable actions should receive an equal consequence, to argue that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for a horrific crime like murder. You could then write the following argument in your essay: keeping the death penalty is right because it follows Kant’s ethical principles that a horrific crime should receive an equivalent punishment .

Consequences

Writers can also make an ethical argument by examining the consequences of an idea or policy. To make this argument, you would list the idea or policy’s positive and negative effects. Based on whether there are more positive or negative consequences, you would decide whether it is morally right or wrong. You could make an argument based on the consequences of the death penalty. Listing its positive and negative effects, let’s imagine you find that there are more positive effects of keeping the death penalty. You might write the following argument in your paper: the death penalty is right because it will deter crime and punish the worst criminals .

Try to create an ethical argument from the opposing viewpoint to those listed above. How could someone use religious beliefs to justify the death penalty? What political ideologies would support the death penalty? Which philosophical theories would oppose the death penalty? Practicing forming arguments from a variety of perspectives will help you in making your arguments and identifying the main claims and appeals in others' arguments.

When to use principles/consequences in an ethical argument

Writers need to know when to use ethical arguments based on principles or consequences depending on their audience. An audience with similar ethics will find an ethical argument based on principles convincing because they share similar values.

Writers encounter challenges when making ethical arguments for diverse audiences. With a diverse audience, people will share a variety of beliefs and may not agree with someone’s moral principles. When you write an essay, you will need to know your audience and be careful in relying too much on ethical arguments based on principles to avoid alienating your audience.

An ethical argument based on consequences is more effective if there is a diverse audience. Because the argument is not built on divisive ethics or values, you can argue for a particular moral outcome by pointing out the consequences of an idea or proposal.

The advice above about using ethical arguments is general writing advice. For exams, your score for an argumentative essay might come from your ability to state your thesis clearly and to explain how your evidence supports your thesis. You may use ethical arguments based on principles as support in your essay, but make sure to explain how these principles support your thesis!

How Do I Select a Topic For an Ethical Argument?

When selecting a topic for your essay where you want to include an ethical argument, make sure you can frame the argument in a way where you argue whether the idea or proposal is morally right or wrong. You should be able to argue for or against the topic by using ethical principles or evaluating their consequences.

Examples of non-ethical topics for essays

The following examples are not appropriate topics for using ethical arguments. These topics do not address whether an idea or proposal is morally right or wrong based on principles or consequences. The topics instead would need logical reasoning or data to support their arguments.

Installing solar panels is an effective way to address climate change because they are cheaper than fossil fuels.

The government should address hunger in disadvantaged communities since it will increase productivity in the workforce.

Governments should increase funding for college tuition to stimulate economic growth.

Et hical Arguments Topics

The following topics would be appropriate for ethical arguments in an essay. They argue for or against a topic based on principles or consequences.

Installing solar panels is the best way to address climate change because it follows Meadows and Dalys’ principles on conserving planetary resources.

Governments should address hunger in disadvantaged communities to adhere to the values outlined in Article 25 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is right for governments to increase funding for college tuition for the following positive reasons: to lessen the financial burden placed on graduating students and to guarantee more equitable access to higher education.

List of Potential Topics For An Ethical Argument In Essays

Topics for ethical arguments in your essay should be arguable and address the ethics behind the topic. Topics will often be about controversial issues because people have different moral beliefs about these topics. Below are several examples of topics that could be the basis of an ethical argument in an essay or paper.

Does the government have an obligation to provide healthcare to its citizens?

Should universities be required to have racial quotas for admissions to address racial disparities?

Should offensive speech be protected by the First Amendment?

Is it ethical for a doctor to refuse care for a patient’s gender transition if gender transitioning goes against the doctor’s religious beliefs?

Does the government have the responsibility to provide reparations to individuals whose families were once enslaved?

What is an individual’s responsibility in addressing climate change?

Is the government obligated to regulate factory farming to reduce animal suffering?

Should hunting be considered a form of animal cruelty?

Using Rhetorical Appeals in Ethical Arguments

Writers rarely make an argument solely from an ethical perspective. Academic philosophers may write papers only using ethical arguments, but you may combine different appeals to craft a convincing argument.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote about the importance of including different rhetorical appeals in an argument. Rhetorical appeals are the different ways you can engage your audience. He explained that there are three primary ways of engaging the audience:

Ethos (appealing to the writer’s credibility or morals/values)

Logos (appealing to logic)

Pathos (appealing to emotions)

Understanding each will help you when making an argument, especially when you want to write an argument primarily from an ethical perspective

Ethos is appealing to morals/values or the author’s credibility. For Aristotle, these ideas are connected. Ethos translates from Greek as “character.” When you appeal to the audience’s morals, you are hoping to convince them based on their “character.” The previous examples have shown how you can build ethical arguments through principles or consequences and how to use these arguments depending on your audience.

Ethos also refers to a writer's credibility or “character.” The audience needs to know the writer is trustworthy, both in the writer’s ethics and on the topic. If you appear biased or ill-informed on your topic, your audience will not be receptive to your argument. The next section will detail how to appear credible to your audience.

Logos is the appeal to logic and reasoning. When you think of argumentation, you probably think of logos, with an argument built on claims with supporting evidence . This supporting evidence is often factual information, such as information from experts and previous research. To help your audience understand your logic, you would explain how this information supports your claim.

Using logos can support an ethical argument, especially those based on consequences. Ethical arguments based on consequences often address whether a policy is right or wrong. You can supplement your argument by using logical arguments with supporting evidence. For example, you are writing an ethical argument based on the consequences of the death penalty. You want to include the consequence that the death penalty leads to the death of innocent individuals. To support this ethical claim, you could use logos in your essay by using data on the high number of wrongly convicted killed.

Pathos is the appeal to emotion. Emotions are powerful since your audience can use their feelings to connect with your argument. Based on your topic, you can think of emotions you would want to appeal to in your audience, like sympathy, anger, or frustration. Using strategies like vivid details and storytelling can create an emotional response in the audience.

You can use pathos to support an ethical argument. Ethical arguments are built on moral principles, and you can use stories or details to evoke both an ethical and emotional response in your audience. By writing an argument against the death penalty, you could tell the story of a wrongly convicted individual killed due to the death penalty. This story would elicit sympathy in the audience and help them understand the ethical reasons for not supporting the death penalty.

Ethical Principle In Ethical Argument Essay

Many professions have rules governing behavior and decision-making. These rules are called ethical principles . These rules ensure that an individual is performing their job in an ethical manner, which builds trust in the profession.

Ethical principles: Rules which govern behavior and decision-making

There are ethical principles writers should follow to appear trustworthy in their writing. You need to think carefully about how you will present an argument in an essay, especially if you are writing about controversial topics. The following suggestions will help you appear credible to your audience.

Be knowledgeable about your topic. Make sure you have prepared to argue about your topic. You should be familiar with the experts and research on your topic and discuss this knowledge in your argument. Being knowledgeable about your topic will build credibility with your audience. They will trust your argument and perspective if you have expertise in your topic.

Be fair to your audience. Your audience may be a group of diverse individuals. Because your audience may hold different views, avoid being too harsh when addressing opposing views. Unfairly attacking opposing viewpoints may alienate your audience, who may think you are too biased. Instead, appeal to universal values or ideals in your argument to connect with your audience.

Be professional. Make sure there are no errors in your paper. Adopting a formal writing style, following common writing conventions, and proofreading your work will make your essay appear credible. Writing with mistakes will appear less credible and trustworthy.

Ethical arguments in essays - Key Takeaways

• An ethical argument is an argument based on ethics that evaluates whether an idea or proposal is morally right or wrong. Ethics are the moral principles that inform behavior or beliefs.
• Writers can form an ethical argument based on principles or an ethical argument based on consequences.
• The effectiveness of an ethical argument depends on the audience. An audience with similar values may find an ethical argument based on principles effective, while an audience with differing views may find an ethical argument based on consequences effective.
• Writers include emotional and logical appeals to improve their ethical arguments.
• Writers maintain their credibility, or ethical principles, in writing by being knowledgeable about their topic, being fair to their audience, and being professional.

1. Martin Luther King Jr., "I Have a Dream," 1963.

2. John Ramage, John Bean, and June Johnson, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings , 2016.

3. John Ramage, John Bean, and June Johnson, Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings , 2016.

• Fig. 6 - Rhetorical triangle (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Rhetorical_Triangle.png/512px-Rhetorical_Triangle.png) by ChloeGui (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title =User:ChloeGui&action=edit&redlink=1) licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International ( Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)

Flashcards inEthical Arguments in Essays 20

What is an ethical argument?

An argument based on ethics that evaluates whether an idea is morally right or wrong

What are ethics?

Moral principles that guide a person's behavior and beliefs

What are ethical principles?

Rules which govern behavior and decision-making

What are two types of ethical arguments?

Ethical arguments based on principles and ethical arguments based on consequences

Which of the following is NOT an ethical argument based on principles?

Physician-assisted suicide is right because it leads to the following positive consequences: individuals have more control over end-of-life decisions and physicians can provide care better aligned with the patient’s quality of life.

Which of the following is an argument based on principles?

Physician-assisted suicide is wrong because it violates Kant’s moral theory about human life.

Learn with 20 Ethical Arguments in Essays flashcards in the free StudySmarter app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Ethical Arguments in Essays

What are examples of ethical arguments?

An ethical argument can be built on principles or by examining consequences. An example of an ethical argument based on principles would state, "The death penalty is wrong because it violates a person’s right to not experience cruel and unusual punishment." An example of an ethical argument based on consequences would say, "The death penalty is right because it will deter crime and punish the worst criminals."

How do you write an ethical argumentative essay?

To write an ethical argument essay, you will need to frame the argument in a way where you can argue whether the idea or proposal is morally right or wrong. You should be able to argue for or against the topic by using ethical principles or evaluating their consequences. You will decide if you want to write based on principles or consequences. You will then decide what other rhetorical appeals you will want to include in your essay to support your argument. 

What makes an argument an ethical argument?

An argument is an ethical argument if it evaluates whether an idea or proposal is morally right or wrong. The argument is based on ethics, which are the moral principles that guide a person's behavior or beliefs. 

What are ethical arguments? 

Ethical arguments evaluate whether an idea or proposal is morally right or wrong. An ethical argument is concerned with ethics, or the moral principles which guide a person’s behavior and beliefs. 

How to include ethics in an argumentative essay?

You can include ethics in an argumentative essay by choosing a topic that you can argue from an ethical perspective. This perspective means that you can argue whether the idea or proposal you are evaluating is right or wrong. Then, you can choose whether you want to argue about the topic using ethical principles or by examining the consequences. Ethical principles include religious beliefs, political ideologies, and philosophical theories. 

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Which of the following is NOT used to make ethical arguments from principles?

Join the StudySmarter App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

About StudySmarter

StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

StudySmarter Editorial Team

Team Ethical Arguments in Essays Teachers

• 15 minutes reading time
• Checked by StudySmarter Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples

In your morality essay, you can cover ethical dilemmas, philosophy, or controversial issues. To decide on your topic, check out this compilation of 138 titles prepared by our experts .

• ❔Top 10 Moral Essay Topics

🏆 Best Morality Essay Topics & Examples

👍 good essay topics on morality, 💡 most interesting morality topics to write about.

• ⭐ Simple & Easy Morality Essay Titles

❓ Questions on Morality for Discussion

❔ top 10 moral essay topics.

• Moral issues in society today
• Genetic engineering: ethical considerations.
• Religious values and morals.
• An ethical discussion about artificial intelligence.
• The morality of stem cell research.
• Euthanasia and social concerns.
• The importance of ethical debate.
• Life sentences and death penalties.
• The relativism of free will.
• GMO and environmental ethics.
• Relationship Between Ethics and Religion Essay While a believer will pose that the two function as a couple, a non-believer, on the other hand will hold that morality is independent of religion.
• Ethics and Morality Relationship Ethics is a term used to refer to the body of doctrines that guide individuals to behave in a way that is ideologically right, fine, and appropriate.
• Morality of Human Acts and Determining Factors Such parameters include the action’s objective, the circumstances engulfing the action, and the intentions of the performer. For instance, when one sets fire to a bush near a human settlement, the primary objective of the […]
• Happiness and Morality This paper will look at the meaning of happiness and morality, the relationship between morality and happiness and why many philosophers hold that in order to be happy, one has to be moral.
• Sport Advantages, Disadvantages and Morality Another great advantage of this kind of sport is that it is very popular and its popularity can guarantee that a player will become famous and well paid, especially if he is playing at a […]
• The Morality of Euthanasia In the meantime the medication and the doctors are not trivial anymore in stopping the pain and the victim despite all the sufferings, he or she is in a vegetative state and there is nothing […]
• Religion Impact on Morality in Christianity and Islam The fact that discussion still goes on testifies to the importance and complexity of the issue rather than the lack of effort in clarifying it.
• Deontological Ethics and Morality According to the theory, moral ethics should enable members of society to attain happiness. Finally, moral ethics should also provide room for improvement to nurture the desired behaviors in society.
• “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer It argues that while Singer’s argument for the suffering and death from lack of basic necessities is bad, his conclusion that it is the duty of the wealthy to do something to alleviate the suffering […]
• Global Poverty: Famine, Affluence, and Morality In the article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Michael Slote contends that rich people have a moral obligation to contribute more to charities.
• Morality and Ethics: Religion Effect on Human Behavior The second objective is to articulate the effect of religions on the economy and the political establishments of a society. The existence of a lot of information on the impact of religion on society made […]
• Did Morality or Economics Dominate the Debates Over Slavery in the 1850s? Labour and economy remained intertwined in that; the former was a factor that determined the state of the latter. Scholars single out economical differences between the two states as the cause of the slavery in […]
• Morality and Moral Responsibility as Presented in Plays by Brecht and Kushner Despite the harshness of the environment in Afghanistan, as we come to discover through the eyes of the daughter, she fosters on in her quest to find her mother.
• “Morality and Religion” Article by Hauser and Singer Marc Hauser and Peter Singer explain the importance of morality and how it is related to religion in their “Morality and religion” report.
• Law and Morality Separation and Relationship The qualifier ‘objectively’ obscures its ultimate point of uncertainty, which is alluded to in the tautological phrase ‘rule of recognition.’ The secularized legislation, like the secular state, relies on the success of its people’s consciences, […]
• Ethics and Morality Theories: Explanation and Comparison The third area that is given consideration in observing the ethics of care is the importance of background information in protecting and upholding the interests of the individuals in question.
• Rhetoric: “The Morality of Birth Control” by Margaret Sanger In her speech, Sanger supports the argument that the American women should have the right to learn more about the birth control because of their responsibility for the personal health and happiness in contrast to […]
• Noble Morality and Slave Morality The major difference between good morality and bad morality according to Nietzsche is that good morality is connected to nobility and bad morals are linked to the common man and simplicity.
• Symbolic Imagery and Theme of Morality in The Tale of Kieu. Thus, it is no wonder that the author uses the uses the imagery of the moon in order to explore the mental state of the main character in situations that she encounters in her life.
• Religion and Morality: An Excursus This notion shows that there are many ways in which people can spread their values and shape the world to their image of perfection.
• Founding Era, Morality, Knowledge, and Religion The founding fathers were instrumental in ensuring that the right approaches were adopted to shape the nation. Frank Lambert, The Founding Fathers and the place of religion in America 65.
• Value-Added Tax and Tax Morality: Legal Framework In order for the concept of tax morality to be determined, it is essential to identify the legal framework for the flat tax that consumers pay once they purchase an item.
• Ethics and Morality in Health Profession Health professionals watch the patient suffering; in this scenario, any intervention leads to a rise in agony and pain, thus putting the healthcare providers in a dilemma.
• Morality in Charles Brockden Brown’s Wieland The story presents a tale of the Wielands as a precautionary tale that is meant to cushion against taking hard stance in religious matters; Theodore Wieland’s over-commitment to religion is presented in this book as […]
• Morality of a Defense Attorney Because of the responsibilities that lawyers have once they have committed themselves to their clients, there are times that their morality is put to test.”A lawyer has to be with a client loyal, knowledgeable, skillful, […]
• Morality of Friedrich Nietzsche and Alasdair MacIntyre Self-deception is the nature of moral judgments because relying on a set of rules that is universal for everyone, regardless of how limiting, presupposes the control over the people’s actions and the security of the […]
• Nietzsche’s Notion of Slave Morality Nietzsche praised the master moralities as the strong values that lead to onward development and evolutionary growth of mankind while he blamed the slave moralities for the weak and decadent nature of the society.
• Morality in Buddhism The purpose of this paper is to expound on the concept of morality in Buddhism, and how the various Buddhist teachings, such as the Four Noble Truths, have enhanced my morality in me and in […]
• “The Morality of Migration” by Benhabib The morality of migration is never simple because of the necessity to define human rights on the one hand and the authority of the government on the other hand.
• Religion and Morality Interconnection In other words, one can state that while religion may sometimes be the cause of evil, without religion there is no basis for religious morality.
• Business Ethics: Morality Issues Toward Customers However, with the aggressive managerial and expansionist practices utilized at the end of the 20th century, and a series of scandals in which the administration of large corporations was involved, the issues of preserving the […]
• Kant’s Premises of Morality in “Gone Baby Gone” Film Looking through the various theories of morality, it could be noticed that Kant’s three premises present the ultimate ground for the philosophical process. In conclusion, it could be claimed that the detective’s actions were morally […]
• Morality in Kohlberg’s and Piaget’s Views On the whole, morality takes its origins in the tension between a person’s desires or needs and the values of a society.
• Moran’s View on Teaching Morally and Teaching Morality The teachers, the state and the entire society are the main player in the act of including morality education in schools but have been blocked from doing so by the people’s view of morality as […]
• Devil’s Playground: Social Norms and Rules of Morality It is the first step to the social chaos and decline which can be observed today in the youth’s alcohol and drugs abuse in spite of all the limitations. According to the Amish people’s visions, […]
• Guilt as an Inner Morality Category Thus, the category of guilt must be evaluated case by case, and injustice is not a reason for the lack of local guilt.
• Mortality and Unfulfillment in Tolstoy’s “The Death of Ivan Ilych” Tolstoy’s novel, “The Death of Ivan Ilych,” is a meditation on life and morality, as seen through the eyes of a man who is nearing the end of his life.
• World Religions, Morality, and Ethical Issues Equality is the core of humanity since human beings were made in the image and likeness of God and have the same value as the supreme being.
• Readers on Morality: Don’t Let TV Be Guide The article “Readers on Morality: Do not Let TV be a Guide” published by the Today is focused on the perception of people about the impact of TV on morality.
• Kant’s Philosophy: Can Rules Define Morality He uses the formula of the law of nature and the end in itself, to support the categorical imperative principle as the only command that dictates the universality of actions.
• Morality and Legitimacy in Politics and Religion Thinking about it, it is always the wealthiest and most powerful people in society who get to rule in governments, and mostly the needs of the poor and powerless are considered the least.
• The Morality of Prenatal Genetic Screening Most of the time, “genetic screening has been more associated with this option in the collective mental, rather than the possibility to better address a specific condition, leading to the complex discussion of an ethical […]
• Machiavelli’s vs. Plato’s Ideas of Political Morality According to him, reconciling the gap between ideal and reality is necessary for the development of a political philosophy capable of guiding the Greeks in their quest for liberty.
• The Morality and Law Relationship In the US, a combination of factory owner neglect and a desire to maximize profits drove factories to ignore the moral and ethical concerns of their workers.
• Virtue Ethics and Private Morality It can tentatively be characterized as an approach that emphasizes virtues and moral character, as opposed to approaches that emphasize the importance of duties and rules or the consequences of actions.
• History of Tax Morality Theory At the beginning of the 1990s, tax morale drew widespread interest and has since become a fundamental problem in the scholarly investigation of tax compliance.
• Morality in Utilitarianism and Deontology Followers of utilitarianism thus claim that an action is morally right when it increases the happiness of the involved parties and minimizes the harm.
• Kantian Morality and Enlightenment According to Kant, thinking of leaders as guardians who have to guide others and prevent them from “daring to take a single step” without strict directions is the premise for the end of humanity.
• Pop Culture and Race, Ethnicity, Sexual Morality, and Gender On the other hand, there is a historically, politically, and economically determined point of intersection between parts of the feminist movement and the conservative media.
• The Relativism and Objectivism Views on Morality However, the criticism of the theory refers to Kant and utilitarianism as other moral theories that always include the interests of other people as major factors. On the other hand, objectivism illustrates the necessity for […]
• “On the Genealogy of Morality”: Nietzsche’s Critique of Modern Values The central problem of On the Genealogy of Morality can be found in the first essay titled Good and Evil, where the skeletal structure of the state-of-the-art of morality is depicted by Nietzsche.
• “Active and Passive Euthanasia” and “Sexual Morality” According to Scruton, morality is a constraint upon reasons for action and a normal consequence of the possession of a first-person perspective. For Scruton, sexual morality includes the condemnation of lust and perversion that is, […]
• Mandatory Vaccination Issue: Support, Morality, and Public Benefit The author of the article states the presence of a moral obligation to undergo mandatory vaccination. The author alleges that there is a public benefit when there are policies for mandatory vaccination.
• “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis: Morality as a Natural Law A major takeaway from the way the author structures his argument is the objectivity of the moral law as the law of nature, and one may understand it reliably through reason and observation.
• Animal Morality Debate Studies Essentially, humans should ensure animals have their basic rights because both animals and humans are social animals and should live interdependently in mutually benefitting ways.
• Socrates’ Claim “Morality Is Objective” People’s moral beliefs of what is good and what is bad is a construction of the knowledge that was obtained from other people of the same society as children learning from the parents.
• Metaphors that Help Understand Christian Morality That is how the writer proves his thesis that there is no chance of being happy and fulfilled as a person without satisfying the need of a higher power and finding a religious purpose.
• Moral Rules, Christian Morality and Healthcare Environments All types of morality and ethics allow people to live in harmony and face the consequences of their actions when morals are not followed.
• Morality and Humane Traits in Huckleberry Finn The most important one, in the presence of which it is possible for the author to commit a legal crime, is the fact that doing otherwise would cross my own ethical values.
• “Seven Fallen Feathers”: Injustice and Morality The issues of the relationship between the indigenous people and the Canadian population are highly varying. Even though the are many distinctions between the people described, such as the periods they lived in and the […]
• Malaria and Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane: Health, Morality and Economics While every single negative effect that DDT has on the people in the vicinity is to be taken into account and considered a separate legitimate statement against the use of DDT, the fact that the […]
• How Decency, Morality and Fairness Have Been Reflected in Islamic Commercial Transactions Business ethics is a field of study that analyzes all the moral and ethical principles that govern the conduct of all the involved parties in commercial relations.
• Ethical Philosophy: Morality and Self-Interest Generally, it is a term that is used to describe the code of acceptable behaviors in a given context or society.
• Morality Evolution, Its Explanations, and Definitions The evolution of morality is closely connected to the issues of human evolution and human moral development7 that are discussed by Darwin and his followers.
• Morality Law and Fuller’s Principle Applied to Scenarios It is therefore the responsibility of both parties to follow the law that governs them: the officials expect that the people will follow the law and hence the people should also expect that the officials […]
• Three Stages of Morality by Kohlberg and Its Reconstructruction It is a way of reasoning exemplified by adolescents and adults who seek to judge the morality of actions by the views and mores of society.
• God and Human Sexuality: Changes in Culture and Morality In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, he stresses the return to the original purpose of the Old Testament law which can be fulfilled not just by refraining from murder, adultery, and false oaths, […]
• “Morality, Metaphysics, and Chinese Culture” by Vincent Shen It is necessary to underline the fact that we could not perceive the morality as human qualities cultivation; the author stressed the idea of humanism, subjectivity and self-assertion to be the necessary components of the […]
• Morality in “Faerie Queene Book II” by Capote and “In Cold Blood” by Spenser The thanksgiving dinner for the family reunion is also one case in point that represents religious as well as social morals for the Clutter family.Mr.
• Same Sex Marriage Morality: Discussion Patterson further concluded that as long as the homosexual parents could let their children understand the real scenario, there is a strong indication that children could very well accept and love their parents even though […]
• The Two Main Types of Morality Behind Nietzsche’s Theory Nietzsche regarded that every personality needs to arrange their moral structure: the key point of principles is to facilitate every individual to sublimate and regulate their obsessions, to emphasize the originality inherent in their being, […]
• Morality: Philosophical Questions It will be recalled that a person is free to perform an action if and only if that person performs the action if he chooses to perform it, does not perform the action if he […]
• Kant’s Opinion on Morality Kant basis his principles of moral ethics on rational procedures and distinguishes the concept of duty from the “self and others” asserting that all actions must be performed only out of a sense of duty […]
• The Nature and Basic Principles of Morality Analysis Furthermore they have to be the controls of such a being as we suppose God is. The notion of the utilitarianism is that the first and most significant principle that is believed can be resulting […]
• Morality in Neo-Confucian Works In fact, such a view on the nature of things implies that humans and their minds form a unity with the world.
• Religion and Morality Relation One impediment to the analysis of religion and morality is the propensity of analysts to use their social perspective in describing a moral concern.
• Morality and Religion: What Is Moral Behavior? The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion by attempting to give an insight into what constitutes moral and immoral behavior as well as the relationship that exists between morality and religion.
• Survival Morality in Ooka’s “Fires on the Plain” Thus, the protagonist is facing the unknown in total solitude because the society around him is in survival mode, at the point of desperation, making each individual and group extremely pragmatic: All stop caring about […]
• God, Others and Self: Catholic Morality It is necessary to note that Christian ethics is a crucial part of the Christian religion that defines appropriate and wrong behaviors, and is based on several sources.
• Morality and Politics: Aristotle and Machiavelli For a government to be effective, there must be a set of morals and virtues in place to ensure the people are happy.
• Non-Consequential Morality Theories and Medical Ethics In particular, it repudiates the idea that the nature of moral order results in sentiment and emotion. In such cases, it is necessary to ask for patient’s consent to reveal the private data in order […]
• Lobbying: Ethics, Morality and Legalities In bribery, the objective of the bribe is clear while in lobbying, the person giving the gift may necessarily not state the reason why s/he is doing so but in mind, s/he is sure the […]
• Morality of States and the Use of Force Abroad In such scenarios, the sovereignty of the country as advanced through the discourse of international relations by the UN is invalidated.
• Opium Trade Morality From Political Perspective Warren was a famous writer of his period, and The Opium Question became a result of Warren’s cooperation with James Matheson, who was interested in presenting his vision of the Opium War, as well as […]
• Opium Trade, Opium War and Its Morality in History What was the economic and political significance of the British-Chinese opium trade? In addition, moral was not the primary concern of the Chinese people involved in the opium trade.
• Ban Smoking Near the Child: Issues of Morality The decision to ban smoking near the child on father’s request is one of the demonstrative examples. The father’s appeal to the Supreme Court of California with the requirement to prohibit his ex-wife from smoking […]
• Morality, Faith, and Dignity in Modern Youth The blistering evolution of society combined with the appearance of new opportunities resulted in the significant deterioration of moral and values which determine the nature of human actions.

⭐ Simple & Easy Health Essay Titles

• Open Immigration, Its Benefits and Morality In this paper, Kukathas articulates that the benefits of open migration as compared to other approaches to the question of immigration. In this essay, Risse makes the argument that “the natural resources of the planet […]
• Morality and Free Will in “Daisy Miller” by James Later on that evening, Daisy suggests to Winterborne about her wish to ride on the lake and willingly overlooks the appropriateness of the time.
• Morality and Truth in Real-Life Situations Any delay could cause the loss of people’s lives, and the financial and reputational losses to the airline and partner companies would be enormous.
• Law: The Morality of the Sweatshops A closer look at the way in which African sweatshops work will reveal that the introduction of the specified principles into the operation of sweatshops is hardly possible due to the cultural differences between the […]
• Thomas Aquinas: Morality and God As the matter of fact, the fourth argument has the moral aspect that shows the Aquinas’s attitude towards the relationship between the God and morality.
• MTV Channel and Morality Values Therefore, it is possible to state that the channel is a product of capitalism and it reflects trends which persist in the society.
• Religion and Morality Connection In the words of Plato, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them”..
• Religious Studies: Morality in Buddhism In this case, much attention should be paid to a collection of restrictions or taboos that should govern the decisions or actions of a person. This is one of the issues that should not be […]
• Adam Smith on the Rules of Morality The reason for this is that, contrary to what many people think, the rules of morality are simultaneously ‘given’ and continuously formed, in regards to what happened to be the affiliated external circumstances.
• Morality and Modernity: Cronon and Daston’s Understanding of Nature Although there is no connection between the ideas expressed by Cronon and Daston and the ideas that the authors of the movie are trying to convey, the latter can still be viewed through the lens […]
• Computer Games: Morality in the Virtual World It is necessary to note that these sets of morals are often employed in the virtual world only as many people create alter egos when playing games.
• Nietzsche’s and Sartre’s Views on Morality On balance, it is possible to note that Nietzsche and Sartre both see morality as certain doctrine aimed at helping people live in the society.
• Ethics and Morality in Business Practice According to Debeljak and Krkac, the corporate environment is quite broad and defined by a number of attributes like the market system, the number of players in the market, the amount of competition in the […]
• Morality of Warfare It should be noted that the Quran only allows the Muslim to engage in war if their faith is threatened and there is need to protect it but abhors war if the Muslim will engage […]
• Memory Lane and Morality In the first experiment where participants were expected to remember their childhood experience, those memories aided the experimenter more than they let the participants take control.
• Morality as a Code of Conduct This is upon reference to an argument on the righteousness of the act. If only a given community or an entity can consider the issue as of moral value, thus it is solely their decision […]
• Animal Liberation vs. Environmentalism With regards to environmentalists, Callicott noted that they were more holistic and real than the animal liberationists since they allocated moral values to the natural ecosystems and resources of the environment.
• Morality Is Rooted in the Character of God In Christianity the character is divided into two aspects where one should exercise the love to God and to man, just as Christ grouped the Ten Commandments in to two.
• Relationship Between Charity, Duty, and Morality The author’s argument is that it is necessary for the society to change its way of responding to the problems of needy people.
• Ethics and Morality in Society and Business The main idea of a business ethic is that it closely correlates with the laws of society, and even though people’s kindness and respect are expected, in order for the companies and organizations to flourish, […]
• Hegel’s Ideas on Action, Morality, Ethics and Freedom Nonetheless, the duties and the very morality developed in one society can significantly differ from the norms accepted in another society, so it is impossible to state that ethical norms of a society correspond to […]
• Sport Drugs and Its Ethic and Morality Impacts Ethics and morality have often been a part of the debate in the usage of such drugs and especially, the influence that the case will have on the greater public.
• Famine, Affluence, and Morality He claims that giving a certain amount to Bengal would result to suffering of individuals and their dependants, which will correspond to the suffering he relieved in Bengal.
• The Essence of Morality as a Driving Force Behind One’s Behavior For example, Plato used to refer to the notion of morality as being synonymous to the notion of justice: “True’ city and the corrupted city are put forward for us as models of human nature […]
• Kim Trong as the Embodiment of Confucian Morality At the beginning of the poem, one can see Kim Trong as an ideal of a man according to the norms and principles of the Vietnamese society: Kim Trong, a scion of the noblest stock.
• Greek Civilization: Morality and ‘Philosophy’ of Life, Politics, and the Way History Is Written by Herodotus In this respect, the Book II written by Herodotus can be considered a good documentary evidence of the process of embalming though morality of this process can be questioned by the contemporary audience taking into […]
• Sports Industry: Morality vs. Money In the end, they will find no need for the use of steroids and the integrity of the game would be restored. At the core of this quest to be the first is the need […]
• “On the Genealogy of Morality” by Friedrich Nietzsche: Passage Analysis They based their perception of what is good on what they received and deemed good while the masses were obliged to accept that as common and if common then as the norm of the values.
• John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant on Morality Unfortunately, in the scrimmage, George had to run for his life and by the time he came back to England he had not heard about his mother; they were separated.
• Can Law Exist Without Morality?
• What Is the Difference Between Religious Morality and Secular Morality?
• Does Morality Have a Place in Law?
• Are Spirituality and Morality the Same Thing?
• Can Science Explain and Account for Human Morality?
• What Are the Differences Between Ethics and Morality?
• Does Morality Override Self-Interest?
• Can Morality Only Come From God?
• What Is the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?
• Does Fiction Build the Morality of Individuals and Societies?
• How to Teach Morality Without Religion?
• What Will Happen to Society Without Morality?
• Is God the Only Possible Foundation for Objective Morality?
• Can Profitability and Morality Co-exist?
• How Does Personal Morality Affect Business?
• What Are the Consequences of Nietzsche’s Discussion of Religion on His Understanding of Morality?
• Does Killing Someone Have Any Morality Behind It?
• Which Socio-Economic Indicators Influence Collective Morality?
• Is There a Correlation Between Wealth and Morality?
• What Are Nietzsche’s Main Arguments Against Morality?
• How Does Morality Affect the Health Care Field?
• What Are the Causes of Disturbances of Morality in Redistribution Systems?
• Does Morality Depend on Society?
• What Does Morality Mean for the Average Person?
• Can a Society Be Ethical Without Morality?
• When Did Humans Develop Morality?
• Should Morality Be Enforced by the Law?
• Why Is Morality Important in Business Ethics?
• Is Human Morality Instinctive or Learned?
• Can Humans Live Without Morality?
• Leadership Development Essay Titles
• Emotional Development Questions
• Lifespan Development Essay Titles
• Personality Development Ideas
• Aristotle Titles
• Deontology Questions
• Immanuel Kant Research Ideas
• Metaphysics Questions
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/morality-essay-topics/

"157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/morality-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/morality-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/morality-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "157 Topics on Morality & Essay Samples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/morality-essay-topics/.

12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers

• Writing Essays
• Writing Research Papers
• English Grammar
• M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
• B.A., History, Armstrong State University

Writing a persuasive essay requires identifying interesting ethical topics, and these options might inspire you to create a powerful and engaging essay, position paper , or speech for your next assignment.

Should Teens Have Plastic Surgery?

Good looks are highly prized in society. You can see advertisements everywhere urging you to buy products that will supposedly enhance your appearance. While many products are topical, plastic surgery is probably the ultimate game-changer. Going under the knife to enhance your looks can be a quick fix and help you achieve the look you desire. It also carries risks and can have lifelong consequences. Consider whether you think teens—who are still developing into mature individuals—should have the right to make such a big decision at such a young age, or if their parents should be able to decide for them.

Would You Tell If You Saw a Popular Kid Bullying?

Bullying is a big problem in schools and even in society in general. But it can be difficult to show courage, step up—and step in—if you see a popular kid bullying someone at school. Would you report it if you saw this happening? Why or why not?

Would You Speak Up If Your Friend Abused an Animal?

Animal abuse by youngsters can foreshadow more violent acts as these individuals grow up. Speaking up might save the animal pain and suffering today, and it might steer that person away from more violent acts in the future. But would you have the courage to do so? Why or why not?

Would You Tell If You Saw a Friend Cheating on a Test?

Courage can come in subtle forms, and that can include reporting seeing someone cheat on a test. Cheating on a test might not seem like such a big deal; perhaps you've cheated on a test yourself. But it is against the policies of schools and universities worldwide. If you saw someone cheating, would you speak up and tell the teacher? What if it were your buddy cheating and telling might cost you a friendship? Explain your stance.

Should News Stories Slant Toward What People Want to Hear?

There is much debate over whether the news should be unbiased or allow commentary. Newspapers, radios, and news television stations are businesses, just as much as a grocery store or online retailers. They need customers to survive, and that means appealing to what their customers want to hear or see. Slanting reports toward popular opinions could increase ratings and readership, in turn saving newspapers and news shows, as well as jobs. But is this practice ethical? What do you think?

Would You Tell If Your Best Friend Had a Drink at the Prom?

Most schools have strict rules about drinking at the prom, but many students still engage in the practice. After all, they'll be graduating soon. If you saw a friend imbibing, would you tell or look the other way? Why?

Should Football Coaches Be Paid More Than Professors?

Football often brings in more money than any other single activity or program a school offers, including academic classes. In the corporate world, if a business is profitable, the CEO and those who contributed to the success are often rewarded handsomely. With that in mind, shouldn't it be the same in academia? Should top football coaches get paid more than top professors? Why or why not?

Should Politics and Church Be Separate?

Candidates often invoke religion when they're campaigning. It's generally a good way to attract votes. But should the practice be discouraged? The U.S. Constitution, after all, dictates that there should be a separation of church and state in this country. What do you think and why?

Would You Speak Up If You Heard an Ugly Ethnic Statement at a Party Filled With Popular Kids?

As in the previous examples, it can be hard to speak up, especially when an incident involves popular kids. Would you have the courage to say something and risk the ire of the "in" crowd? Who would you tell?

Should Assisted Suicides Be Allowed for Terminally Ill Patients?

Some countries, like the Netherlands, allow assisted suicides , as do some U.S. states. Should "mercy killing" be legal for terminally ill patients who are suffering from great physical pain? What about patients whose diseases will negatively impact their families? Why or why not?

Should a Student's Ethnicity Be a Consideration for College Acceptance?

There has been a long-standing debate about the role ethnicity should play in college acceptance. Proponents of affirmative action argue that underrepresented groups should be given a leg up. Opponents say that all college candidates should be judged on their merits alone. What do you think and why?

Should Companies Gather Information About Their Customers?

Information privacy is a big and growing issue. Every time you log onto the internet and visit an online retailer, news company, or social media site, companies gather information about you. Should they have the right to do so, or should the practice be banned? Why do you think so? Explain your answer.

• How to Ask and Answer Basic English Questions
• 100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
• 50 Argumentative Essay Topics
• 100 Persuasive Essay Topics
• 49 Opinion Writing Prompts for Students
• Fun March Writing Prompts for Journaling
• Engaging Writing Prompts for 3rd Graders
• 24 Journal Prompts for Creative Writing in the Elementary Classroom
• 9 Common Medical School Interview Questions and How to Answer Them
• May Writing Prompts
• Writing Prompts for 7th Grade
• Second Grade Writing Prompts
• January Writing Prompts
• April Writing Prompts
• October Writing Prompts
• 'Lord of the Flies' Questions for Study and Discussion

11 Ten Rules for Ethical Arguments

Another Way to Think about Logical Fallacies

Rebecca Jones; Liz Delf; Rob Drummond; and Kristy Kelly

Rebecca Jones Adapted by Liz Delf, Rob Drummond, and Kristy Kelly

Pragma-dialectics is a study of argumentation that focuses on the ethics of one’s logical choices in creating an argument. While this version of argumentation deals with everything from ethics to arrangement, what this field adds to rhetorical studies is a new approach to argument fallacies . Fallacies are often the cause of the mystery feeling we get when we come across faulty logic or missteps in an argument.

What follows is an adaptation of Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans’s “violations of the rules for critical engagement” from their book Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (109). Rather than discuss rhetorical fallacies in a list (ad hominem, straw man, equivocation, etc.), they argue that there should be rules for proper argument to ensure fairness, logic, and a solution to the problem being addressed. Violating these rules causes a fallacious argument and can result in a standoff rather than a solution.

While fallacious arguments, if purposeful, pose real ethical problems, most people do not realize they are committing fallacies when they create an argument. To purposely attack someone’s character rather than their argument (ad hominem) not only is unethical but demonstrates lazy argumentation. However, confusing cause and effect might simply be a misstep that needs fixing. It is important to admit that many fallacies, though making an argument somewhat unsound, can be rhetorically savvy. While we know that appeals to pity (or going overboard on the emotional appeal) can often demonstrate a lack of knowledge or evidence, they often work.

As such, these rules present argumentation as it would play out in a utopian world where everyone is calm and logical, where everyone cares about resolving the argument at hand rather than winning the battle, and where everyone plays by the rules. Despite the utopian nature of the list, it offers valuable insight into argument flaws and offers hope for better methods of deliberation.

I. The Freedom Rule

Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.

(van Eemeren et al. 110)

There are many ways to stop an individual from giving her own argument. This can come in the form of a physical threat but most often takes the form of a misplaced critique. Instead of focusing on the argument, the focus is shifted to the character of the writer or speaker (ad hominem) or to making the argument (or author) seem absurd (straw man) rather than addressing its actual components. In the past decade, “Bush is stupid” became a common ad hominem attack that allowed policy to go unaddressed. To steer clear of the real issues of global warming, someone might claim, “Only a fool would believe global warming is real” or “Trying to suck all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere with giant greenhouse gas machines is mere science fiction, so we should look at abandoning all this greenhouse gas nonsense.”

II. The Burden-of-Proof Rule

A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so.

(van Eemeren et al. 113)

This is one of my favorites. It is clear and simple. If you make an argument, you have to provide evidence to back it up. During the 2008 presidential debates, Americans watched as all the candidates fumbled over the following question about health care: “How will this plan actually work?” If you are presenting a written argument, this requirement can be accommodated through quality, researched evidence applied to your standpoint.

III. The Standpoint Rule

A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

(van Eemeren et al. 116)

Your standpoint is simply your claim, your basic argument in a nutshell. If you disagree with another person’s argument or they disagree with yours, the actual standpoint and not some related but more easily attacked issue must be addressed. For example, one person might argue that the rhetoric of global warming has created a multimillion-dollar green industry benefiting from fears over climate change. This is an argument about the effects of global warming rhetoric, not global warming itself. It would break the standpoint rule to argue that the writer/speaker does not believe in global warming. This is not the issue at hand.

IV. The Relevance Rule

A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint.

(van Eemeren et al. 119)

Similar to #3 , this rule assures that the evidence you use must actually relate to your standpoint. Let’s stick with the same argument: global warming has created a green industry benefiting from fears over climate change. Under this rule, your evidence would need to offer examples of the rhetoric and the resulting businesses that have developed since the introduction of green industries. It would break the rules to simply offer attacks on businesses that sell “eco-friendly” products.

V. The Unexpressed Premise Rule

A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit.

(van Eemeren et al. 121)

This one sounds a bit complex, though it happens nearly every day. If you have been talking to another person and feel the need to say, “That’s not what I meant,” then you have experienced a violation of the unexpressed premise rule. Overall, the rule attempts to keep the argument on track and not let it stray into irrelevant territory. The first violation of the rule, to falsely present what has been left unexpressed, is to rephrase someone’s standpoint in a way that redirects the argument. One person might argue, “I love to go to the beach,” and another might respond by saying, “So you don’t have any appreciation for mountain living.” The other aspect of this rule is to camouflage an unpopular idea and deny that it is part of your argument. For example, you might argue, “I have nothing against my neighbors. I just think that there should be a noise ordinance in this part of town to help cut down on crime.” This clearly shows that the writer does believe her neighbors to be criminals but won’t admit it.

VI. The Starting Point Rule

No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

(van Eemeren et al. 128)

Part of quality argumentation is to agree on the opening standpoint. According to this theory, argument is pointless without this kind of agreement. It is well known that arguing about abortion is nearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights of the unborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two different starting points.

VII. The Argument Scheme Rule

A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied.

(van Eemeren et al. 130)

This rule is about argument strategy. Argument schemes could take up another paper altogether. Suffice it to say that schemes are ways of approaching an argument, your primary strategy. For example, you might choose emotional rather than logical appeals to present your position. This rule highlights the fact that some argument strategies are simply better than others. For example, if you choose to create an argument based largely on attacking the character of your opponent rather than the issues at hand, the argument is moot.

Argument by analogy is a popular and well-worn argument strategy (or scheme). Essentially, you compare your position to a more commonly known one and make your argument through the comparison. For example, in the “Trust No One” argument in chapter 9, the author equates the Watergate and Monica Lewinsky scandals. Since it is common knowledge that Watergate was a serious scandal, including Monica Lewinsky in the list offers a strong argument by analogy: the Lewinsky scandal did as much damage as Watergate. To break this rule, you might make an analogy that does not hold up, such as comparing a minor scandal involving a local school board to Watergate. This would be an exaggeration, in most cases.

VIII. The Validity Rule

The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.

(van Eemeren et al. 132)

This rule is about traditional logics. Violating this rule means that the parts of your argument do not match up. For example, your cause and effect might be off: If you swim in the ocean today, you will get stung by a jellyfish and need medical care. Joe went to the doctor today. He must have been stung by a jellyfish. While this example is obvious (we do not know that Joe went swimming), many argument problems are caused by violating this rule.

IX. The Closure Rule

A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts.

(van Eemeren et al. 134)

This seems the most obvious rule, yet it is one that most public arguments ignore. If your argument does not cut it, admit the faults and move on. If another writer/speaker offers a rebuttal and you clearly counter it, admit that the original argument is sound. Seems simple, but it’s not in our public culture. This would mean that George W. Bush would have to have a press conference and say, “My apologies, I was wrong about WMD,” or for someone who argued fervently that Americans want a single-payer option for health care to instead argue something like, “The polls show that Americans want to change health care, but not through the single-payer option. My argument was based on my opinion that the single-payer option is the best way and not on public opinion.” Academics are more accustomed to retraction because our arguments are explicitly part of particular conversations. Rebuttals and renegotiations are the norm. That does not make them any easier to stomach in an “argument is war” culture.

X. The Usage Rule

Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of the other party as carefully and accurately as possible.

(van Eemeren et al. 136)

While academics are perhaps the worst violators of this rule, it is an important one to discuss. Be clear. I notice in both student and professional academic writing that a confusing concept often means confusing prose, longer sentences, and more letters in a word. If you cannot say it / write it clearly, the concept might not yet be clear to you. Keep working. Ethical violations of this rule happen when someone is purposefully ambiguous so as to confuse the issue. We can see this on all the “law” shows on television or through deliberate propaganda.

The original chapter, Ten Rules for Ethical Arguments: Another Way to Think about Logical Fallacies by Rebecca Jones, is from Writing Spaces vol 1

Discussion Questions

• Discuss the ethics of argument fallacies. What’s the problem with violating these rules?
• Why is it helpful to identify and learn names for these rules? How does it impact how you may see arguments in the future?
• Is it possible to win the debate but still “lose” by some other measure? How do the ethics of argumentation connect to this question?
• These rules are examples of what not to do—but of course people still do them. Find an example of someone (a politician, a TikTok influencer, a journalist) willfully or unintentionally violating one of these rules. Discuss what they did and how it impacted their argument.
• Find a print ad or short commercial on the internet that violates one of these rules. How so? Why do they do this? Is it effective? Is it manipulative?
• Write a short argument (one to two sentences) about your next paper topic that clearly violates the rule. This can be a poorly framed version of your own argument, or it could be a real (but fallacious) argument that other people make about the issue.
• Explain why this argument violates the rule. Why might someone do this in an argument? Would it be effective? (To be clear, these fallacies are examples of what not to do—but, of course, people still use them.)
• Take the fallacious argument that you just created and correct it: write a solid argument that conforms to the rule.

Works Cited

van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation . Routledge, 2002.

Ten Rules for Ethical Arguments Copyright © 2022 by Rebecca Jones; Liz Delf; Rob Drummond; and Kristy Kelly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God

Moral arguments for God’s existence form a diverse family of arguments that reason from some feature of morality or the moral life to the existence of God, usually understood as a morally good creator of the universe. Moral arguments are both important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their soundness requires attention to practically every important philosophical issue dealt with in metaethics. They are important because of their prominence in popular apologetic arguments for religious belief. Evidence for this can be found in the amazing popularity of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity (1952), which is almost certainly the best-selling book of apologetics in the twentieth century, and which begins with a moral argument for God’s existence. Many ordinary people regard religion as in some way providing a basis or foundation for morality. This fact might seem to favor religious arguments for morality rather than moral arguments for religious belief, but if someone believes that morality is in some way “objective” or “real,” and that this moral reality requires explanation, moral arguments for God’s reality naturally suggest themselves. The apparent connection between morality and religion appears to many people to support the claim that moral truths require a religious foundation, or can best be explained by God’s existence, or some qualities or actions of God.

After some general comments about theistic arguments and a brief history of moral arguments, this essay will discuss several different forms of the moral argument. A major distinction is that between moral arguments that are theoretical in nature and practical or pragmatic arguments. The former are best thought of as arguments that begin with alleged moral facts and argue that God is necessary to explain those facts, or at least that God provides a better explanation of them than secular accounts can offer. The latter typically begin with claims about some good or end that morality requires and argue that this end is not attainable unless God exists. Whether this distinction is hard and fast will be one of the questions to be discussed, as some argue that practical arguments by themselves cannot be the basis of rational belief. To meet such concerns practical arguments may have to include a theoretical dimension as well.

1. The Goals of Theistic Arguments

2. history of moral arguments for god’s existence, 3. theoretical moral arguments for god’s existence and divine command theories of moral obligation, 4. arguments from moral knowledge or awareness, 5. arguments from human dignity or worth, 6. practical moral arguments for belief in god, 7. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

Before attempting to explain and assess moral arguments for the existence of God, it would be helpful to have some perspective on the goals of arguments for God’s existence. (We shall generically term arguments for God’s existence “theistic arguments.”) Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.

More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? Arguments that meet these standards could have value in making belief in God reasonable for some people, or even giving some people knowledge of God’s existence, even if it turns out that some of the premises of the arguments can be reasonably denied by other people, and thus that the arguments fail as proofs.

A major issue that cannot be settled here concerns the question of where the burden of proof lies with respect to theistic arguments. Many secular philosophers follow Antony Flew (1976) in holding that there is a “presumption of atheism.” On this view, believing in God is like believing in the Loch Ness Monster or leprechauns, something that reasonable people do not do without sufficient evidence. If such evidence is lacking, the proper stance is atheism rather than agnosticism.

This “presumption of atheism” has been challenged in a number of ways. Alvin Plantinga (2000) has argued that reasonable belief in God does not have to be based on propositional evidence, but can be “properly basic.” On this view, reasonable belief in God can be the outcome of a basic faculty (called the sensus divinitatis by theologian John Calvin) and thus needs no support from arguments at all. In response some would argue that even if theistic belief is not grounded in propositional evidence, it still might require non-propositional evidence (such as experience), so it is not clear that Plantinga’s view by itself removes the burden of proof challenge.

A second way to challenge the presumption of atheism is to question an implicit assumption made by those who defend such a presumption, which is that belief in God is epistemologically more risky than unbelief. The assumption might be defended in the following way: One might think that theists and atheists share a belief in many entities: atoms, middle-sized physical objects, animals, and stars, for example. Someone, however, who believes in leprechauns or sea monsters in addition to these commonly accepted objects thereby incurs a burden of proof. Such a person believes in “one additional thing” and thus seems to incur additional epistemological risk. One might think that belief in God is relevantly like belief in a leprechaun or sea monster, and thus that the theist also bears an additional burden of proof. Without good evidence in favor of belief in God the safe option is to refrain from belief.

However, the theist may hold that this account does not accurately represent the situation. Instead, the theist may argue that the debate between atheism and theism is not simply an argument about whether “one more thing” exists in the world. In fact, God is not to be understood as an entity in the world at all; any such entity would by definition not be God. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe. The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because God creates and conserves that object; every finite thing has the character of being dependent on God. The atheist denies this and affirms that the basic entities in the natural world have the character of existing “on their own.”

If this is the right way to think about the debate, then it is not obvious that atheism is safer than theism. The debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a whole. Both parties are making claims about the character of everything in the natural world, and both claims seem risky. This point is especially important in dealing with moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview in explaining morality. Such accounts need to explain without watering the categories of morality down or otherwise domesticating them and thereby depriving them of their most interesting features. Evidentialists may properly ask about the evidence for theism, but it also seems proper to ask about the evidence for atheism if the atheist is committed to a rival metaphysic such as naturalism.

Something that resembles a moral argument for God’s existence, or at least an argument from value, can be found in the fourth of Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Ways” (Aquinas 1265–1274, I, 1, 3). Aquinas there begins with the claim that among beings who possess such qualities as “good, true, and noble” there are gradations. Presumably he means that some things that are good are better than other good things; perhaps some noble people are nobler than others who are noble. In effect Aquinas is claiming that when we “grade” things in this way we are, at least implicitly, comparing them to some absolute standard. Aquinas believes this standard cannot be merely “ideal” or “hypothetical,” and thus this gradation is only possible if there is some being which has this quality to a “maximum” extent: “so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. Ii.” Aquinas goes on to affirm that this being which provides the standard is also the cause or explanation of the existence of these qualities, and such a cause must be God. Obviously, this argument draws deeply on Platonic and Aristotelian assumptions that are no longer widely held by philosophers. For the argument to be plausible today, such assumptions would have to be defended, or else the argument reformulated in a way that frees it from its original metaphysical home.

Probably the most influential versions of the moral argument for belief in God can be traced to Kant (1788 [1956]), who famously argued that the theoretical arguments for God’s existence were unsuccessful, but presented a rational argument for belief in God as a “postulate of practical reason.” Kant held that a rational, moral being must necessarily will “the highest good,” which consists of a world in which people are both morally good and happy, and in which moral virtue is the condition for happiness. The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means. This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant’s arguments will be discussed later in this article.

Kant-inspired arguments were prominent in the nineteenth century, and continued to be important right up to the middle of the twentieth century. Such arguments can be found, for example, in W. R. Sorley (1918), Hastings Rashdall (1920), and A. E. Taylor (1945/1930). Although Henry Sidgwick was not himself a proponent of a moral argument for God’s existence, some have argued that his thought presents the materials for such an argument (see Walls and Baggett 2011). In the nineteenth century John Henry Newman (1870) also made good use of a moral argument in his case for belief in God, developing what could be called an argument from conscience.

Besides those luminaries from the history of the moral argument, several other figures made contributions of various sorts to the discussion, including Arthur Balfour (1915), Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison (1920), Clement Webb (2012), W. G. de Burgh (1938), W. R. Matthews (1921), Austin Farrer (2012), and H. P. Owen (1965). A chronicle of much of this history was published by Walls and Baggett (2019). Recovering such history is a helpful antidote to the ahistorical character of much contemporary analytic philosophy.

In recent philosophy there has been a revival of divine command metaethical theories, which has in turn led to new versions of the moral argument found in such thinkers as Robert Adams (1987), John Hare (1996), and C. Stephen Evans (2010). Work on divine command theory, both in favor and against, has experienced a recent resurgence of interest. This work has encompassed both motivations for and formulations of divine command theory, as well as extensive discussion of both old and new objections to it.

However, it is important to see that there are versions of the moral argument for God’s existence that are completely independent of such a divine command theory, and this possibility can be seen in arguments developed by Angus Ritchie (2012) and Mark Linville (2009). Perhaps the most extensive and developed account of a moral argument for God’s existence in recent philosophy is found in David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls (2016). This book examines a comprehensive cumulative form of moral argument and extensively explores underlying issues. It goes without saying that these renewed arguments have engendered new criticisms as well. Theoretical moral arguments for God’s existence can be understood as variations on the following template:

• There are objective moral facts.
• God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
• Therefore, (probably) God exists.

As we shall see, there are a variety of features of morality that can be appealed to in the first steps of the arguments, as well as a variety of ways in which God might be thought to provide an explanation of those features in the second steps. The use of the somewhat vague phrase “objective moral facts” is intended to allow for this variety in Premise 1. The similarly vague notion of God providing the best explanation of such facts allows for the variety of ways moral features may depend on God—divine commands one salient option among them. Both types of premises are obviously open to challenge. For example, the first premise of such an argument can be challenged by popular metaethical views that see morality as “subjective,” or “expressive,” rather than something that consists of objective facts. Moral skeptics and “error theorists” also challenge the first premise. The second premise can be challenged on the basis of rival explanations of the features of morality, explanations that do not require God. Arguments about the second premise then may require comparison between theistic explanations of morality and these rival views, with an attentive eye on the relevant evidence in need of explanation.

It is easy to see then that the proponent of a moral argument has a complex task: She must defend the reality and objectivity of the feature of morality appealed to, but also defend the claim that this feature can be best explained by God. The second part of the task may require not only demonstrating the strengths of a theistic explanation, but pointing out weaknesses in rival secular explanations as well. Both parts of the task are essential, but it is worth noting that the two components cannot be accomplished simultaneously. The theist must defend the reality of morality against subjectivists, constructivists, and “moral nihilists.” Assuming that this task has been carried out, the theist must then try to show that morality thus understood requires or at least is most plausibly understood by a theistic explanation.

It is interesting to observe, however, that with respect to both parts of the task, the theist may enlist non-theists as allies. The theist may well make common cause with ethical naturalists as well as ethical non-naturalists in defending moral realism against “projective” theories such as expressivism. However, the theist may also enlist the support of error theorists such as J. L. Mackie (1977), and moral nihilists such as Friedrich Nietzsche (1887) in arguing that God is necessary for objective morality. Nietzsche, for example, explicitly holds that God does not exist, but also claims that God’s non-existence undermines the reality of traditional western morality. The fact that theists can enlist such unlikely allies does not mean the moral argument for God’s existence is sound, but it does suggest that the argument is not obviously question-begging, since both premises are sometimes accepted by (different) non-believers.

One easily understandable version of a theistic moral argument relies on an analogy between human laws promulgated by nation-states and moral laws. Sovereign states enact laws that make certain acts forbidden or required. If I am a U. S. citizen, and I earn more than a small amount of money I am obligated to file an income tax return each year. I am also forbidden, because of the laws that hold in the United States, to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sex, age, or race. Many people believe that there are moral laws that bind individuals in the same way that political laws do. I am obligated by a moral principle not to lie to others, and I am similarly obligated to keep promises that I have made. (Both legal and moral laws may be understood as holding prima facie , so that in some situations a person must violate one law in order to obey a more important one.)

We know how human laws come into existence. They are enacted by legislatures (or absolute monarchs in some countries) who have the authority to pass such laws. How then should the existence of moral laws be explained? It seems plausible to many to hold that they must be similarly grounded in some appropriate authority, and the or best candidate to fulfill this role is God. Some philosophers have dismissed an argument of this type as “crude,” presumably because its force is so obvious that no special philosophical training is necessary to understand it and see its appeal. The fact that one can understand the argument without much in the way of philosophical skill is not necessarily a defect, however. If one supposes that there is a God, and that God wants humans to know him and relate to him, one would expect God to make his reality known to humans in very obvious ways (See Evans 2010). After all, critics of theistic belief, such as J. L. Schellenberg (1993), have argued that the fact that God’s reality is not obvious to those who would like to believe in God is a grave problem. If an awareness of moral obligations is in fact an awareness of God’s commands or divine laws, then the ordinary person who is aware of moral obligations does have a kind of awareness of God. Of course such a person might be aware of God’s laws without realizing that they are God’s laws; she might be aware of God’s commands without being aware of them under that description. The religious apologist might view such a person as already having a kind of de re awareness of God, because a moral obligation is simply an expression of God’s will (or God’s command or motivation, preference or desire).

How can such an awareness be converted into full-fledged belief in God? One way of doing this would be to help the person gain the skills needed to recognize moral laws as what they are, as divine commands or divine laws. If moral laws are experienced, then moral experience could be viewed as a kind of religious experience or at least a proto-religious experience. Perhaps someone who has experience of God in this way does not need a moral argument (or any kind of argument) to have a reasonable belief in God. This may be one instance of the kind of case that Alvin Plantinga (2000) and the “Reformed epistemologists” have in mind when they claim that belief in God can be “properly basic.” It is worth noting then that there could be such a thing as knowledge of God that is rooted in moral experience without that knowledge being the result of a moral argument .

Even if that is the case, however, a moral argument could still play a valuable role. Such an argument might be one way of helping an individual understand that moral obligations are in fact divine commands or laws. Even if it were true that some ordinary people might know that God exists without argument, an argument could be helpful in defending the claim that this is the case. A person might conceivably need an argument for the second-level claim that the person knows God without argument.

In any case a divine command metaethical theory provides the material for such an argument. The revival of divine command theories (DCT) of moral obligation is due mainly to the work of Philip Quinn (1979/1978) and Robert Adams (1999). Adams’ version of a DCT has been particularly influential and is well-suited for the defense of the claim that moral knowledge can provide knowledge of God. Adams’ version of a DCT is an account of moral obligations and it must be distinguished from more general “voluntarist” views of ethics that try to treat other moral properties (such as the good) as dependent on God’s will. As explained below, by limiting the theory to obligations, Adams avoids the standard “ Euthyphro ” objection, which claims that divine command views reduce ethics to arbitrariness.

Adams’ account of moral obligations as divine commands rests on a more general social theory of obligations. There are of course many types of obligations: legal obligations, financial obligations, obligations of etiquette, and obligations that hold in virtue of belonging to some club or association, to name just a few. Clearly these obligations are distinct from moral obligations, since in some cases moral obligations can conflict with these other kinds. What is distinctive about obligations in general? They are not reducible simply to normative claims about what a person has a good reason to do.

J. S. Mill (1874, 164–165) argued that we can explain normative principles without making any reference to God. He contends that the “feeling of obligation” stems from “something that the internal conscience bears witness to in its own nature,” and thus the moral law, unlike human laws, “does not originate in the will of a legislator or legislature external to the mind.” Doubtless Mill had in mind here such normative logical principles as “it is wrong to believe both p and not-p at the same time.” Mill argues that such normative principles hold without any requirement for an “authority” to be their ground, and he thinks this is plausible for the case of moral principles as well. Mill’s view is plausible at least for some normative principles, though some theists have argued that metaphysical naturalists have difficulty in explaining any kind of normativity (see Devine 1989, 88–89). However, even if Mill is correct about normativity in general, it does not follow that his view is correct for moral obligations, which have a special character. An obligation has a special kind of force; we should care about complying with it, and violations of obligations appropriately incur blame (Adams 1999, 235). If I make a logical mistake, I may feel silly or stupid or embarrassed, but I have no reason to feel guilty, unless the mistake reflects some carelessness on my part that itself constitutes a violation of a moral obligation. Adams argues that “facts of obligation are constituted by broadly social requirements.” (ibid, 233) For example, the social role of parenting is partly constituted by the obligations one assumes by becoming a parent, and the social role of citizen is partly constituted by the obligations to obey the laws of the country in which one is a citizen.

All obligations are then constituted by social requirements, according to Adams. However, not all obligations constituted by social requirements are moral obligations. What social relation could be the basis of moral obligations? Adams argues that not just any human social relation will possess the requisite authority: “A morally valid obligation obviously will not be constituted by just any demand sponsored by a system of social relationships that one in fact values. Some such demands have no moral force, and some social systems are downright evil.” (ibid, 242) If a good and loving God exists and has created all humans, then the social relation humans have to God has the right features to explain moral obligations. For if moral obligations stem from God’s requirements, they will be objective, but they will also be motivating, since a relation to God would clearly be a great good that humans would have reason to value. Since a proper relation to God is arguably more important than any other social relation, we can also understand why moral obligations trump other kinds of obligations. On this view we can also explain why moral obligations have a transcendent character, which is important because “a genuinely moral conception of obligation must have resources for moral criticism of social systems and their demands.” (ibid, 242–243)

Notice that the DCT Adams defends in his later work is ontological rather than semantic: it is a claim that moral obligations are in fact identical with divine commands, not a claim that “moral obligations” has the same meaning as “divine commands.” On his account, applying the work of direct reference theorists like Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke to the arena of ethics, the meaning of “moral obligation” is fixed by the role this concept plays in our language. That role includes such facts as these: Moral obligations must be motivating and objective. They also must provide a basis for critical evaluation of other types of obligations, and they must be such that someone who violates a moral obligation is appropriately subject to blame. Adams argues that it is divine commands that best satisfy these desiderata. God’s existence thus provides the best explanation of moral obligations. If moral obligations are identical with divine commands (or perhaps if they are grounded in or caused to exist by divine commands) an argument for God’s existence from such obligations can easily be constructed:

• There are objective moral obligations.
• If there are objective moral obligations, there is a God who explains these obligations.
• There is a God.

This argument is stated in a deductive form, but it can easily be reworded as a probabilistic “argument to the best explanation,” as follows:

• God provides the best explanation of the existence of moral obligations.
• Probably, God exists.

Obviously, those who do not find a DCT convincing will not think this argument from moral obligation has force. However, Adams anticipates and gives a forceful answer to one common criticism of a DCT. It is often argued that a DCT must fail because of a dilemma parallel to one derived from Plato’s Euthyphro . The dilemma for a DCT can be derived from the following question: Assuming that God commands what is right, does he command what is right because it is right (assuming that “right” here means “morally required” and not just “morally permissible.”)? If the proponent of a DCT answers affirmatively, then it appears the quality of rightness must hold antecedently to and thus independently of God’s commands. If, however, the proponent denies that God commands what is right because it is right, then God’s commands appear arbitrary. Adams’ version of a DCT evades this dilemma by invoking the good/right distinction and holding that God is essentially good and that his commands are necessarily aimed at the good. This allows Adams to claim that God’s commands make actions obligatory (or forbidden), while denying that the commands are arbitrary in any problematic sense.

Although Adams’ version of a DCT successfully meets this “ Euthyphro ” objection, there are other powerful criticisms that have been mounted against this metaethical theory in the literature. These objections can be found in the writings of Wes Morriston (2009, 2016), Erik Wielenberg (2005, especially part 3, 2014, and chapter 2, 2020), Oppy (2014, especially ch. 3), and Nicholas Wolterstorff (2007), among others. Besides arbitrariness, objections raised against DCT include autonomy objections, a variety of epistemic objections, a psychopathy objection, supervenience objections, prior obligations objection, and other Euthyphro objections, which include grounding, vacuity, and counterpossible objections.

Wielenberg explicitly defends as an alternative to divine command metaethics a view he calls “godless normative realism.” This is essentially the view that moral truths are basic or fundamental in character, not derived from natural facts or any more fundamental metaphysical facts. It thus seems similar to the view often called “ethical non-naturalism.” This view certainly provides a significant alternative to divine command metaethics. However, it is worth noting that some of the criticisms that metaphysical naturalists have against theistic metaethics may apply to Wielenberg’s view as well. Specifically, philosophers such as J. L. Mackie (1977) find non-natural ethical qualities of any kind “queer” since they are so unlike the realities discovered by science. The “brute moral facts” posited by Wielenberg as necessary truths seem vulnerable to this same criticism. In fact, the criticism may be sharper against Wielenberg’s view than against theistic views, since ethical truths may appear less odd in a universe that is ultimately grounded in a person. Responses to the objections of Wielenberg, Morriston, and others have also been given (see Evans 2013, Baggett and Walls, 2011, 2016, Flannagan, 2017, 2021a, 2021, Pruss, 2009, Davis and Franks, 2015). Clearly the version of a moral argument for God’s existence that rests on divine command theory will only be judged powerful by those who find a DCT plausible, and that will certainly be a minority of philosophers. (Although it is worth noting that no single metaethical theory seems to enjoy widespread support among philosophers, so a DCT is not alone in being a minority view.) Nevertheless, those who do find a DCT powerful will also see moral obligations as providing strong evidence for God’s reality.

A variety of arguments have been developed that God is necessary to explain human awareness of moral truth (or moral knowledge, if one believes that this moral awareness amounts to knowledge). Richard Swinburne (2004, 218), for example, argues that there is no “great probability that moral awareness will occur in a Godless universe.” On Swinburne’s view, moral truths are either necessary truths or contingent truths that are grounded in necessary truths. For example, it is obviously contingent that “It is wrong to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima,” since it is contingent that there exists a city such as Hiroshima. But one might hold that this proposition is true (assuming it is) because of some other truth such as “It is wrong intentionally to kill innocent humans” which does hold universally and is necessarily true. Swinburne does not think that an argument to God’s existence from moral facts as such is powerful, increasing the likelihood of theism only a little. However, the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation.

It may be true that creatures who belong to groups that behave altruistically will have some survival advantage over groups that lack such a trait. However, moral beliefs are not required in order to produce such behavior, since it is clear that “there are many species of animals that are naturally inclined to help others of their species, and yet do not have moral beliefs.” (Swinburne 2004, 217) If God exists, he has “significant reason to bring about conscious beings with moral awareness,” since his intended purpose for humans includes making it possible for them freely to choose good over evil, since this will make it possible for them to develop a relation to God. Swinburne does not think that this argument provides very strong evidence for God’s existence by itself, but rather that it provides some inductive support for belief in God. It is one of several phenomena which seem more probable in a theistic universe than in a godless universe. As we consider more and more such phenomena, it will be increasingly improbable that “they will all occur.” (ibid, 218) All of these inductive arguments together may then provide substantial support for theistic belief, even if no one of them by itself would be sufficient for rational belief by demonstrating that theism is likely true.

Swinburne’s version of the argument is quite brief and undeveloped, but some claims that could be used to support a more developed version of the argument (one that will be described below) can be found in a well-known and much cited article by Sharon Street (2006). Street’s argument, as the title implies, is in no way intended to support a moral argument for theism. To the contrary, her purpose is to defend anti-realist metaethical theories against realist theories that view moral truth as “stance-independent” of human attitudes and emotions. Street presents the moral realist with a dilemma posed by the question as to how our human evaluative beliefs are related to human evolution. It is clear, she believes, that evolution has strongly shaped our evaluative attitudes. The question concerns how those attitudes are related to the objective evaluative truths accepted by the realist. If the realist holds that there is no relation between such truths and our evaluative attitudes, then this implies that “most of our evaluative judgments are off track due to the distorting influence of Darwinian processes.” The other alternative for the realist is to claim that there is a relationship, and thus that is not an accident or miracle that our evaluative beliefs track the objective truths. However, this view, Street claims, is scientifically implausible. Street argues therefore that an evolutionary story about how we came to make the moral judgments we make undermines confidence in the objective truth of those judgments. Street’s argument is of course controversial and thinkers such as Erik Wielenberg (2014) have argued against evolutionary debunking arguments. Still, many regard such arguments as problematic for those who want to defend moral realism, particularly when developed as a “global” argument (Kahane, 2010).

Street’s argument has also been challenged by such critics as Russ Shafer-Landau (2012). However, her argument, and similar arguments, have been acknowledged by some moral realists, such as David Enoch (2011) and Erik Wielenberg (2014) to pose a significant problem for their view. Enoch, for example, even though he offers a response to Street’s argument, evidently has some worries about the strength of his reply. Wielenberg, to avoid the criticism that in a non-theistic universe it would be extremely lucky if evolution selected for belief in objectively true moral values, proposes that the natural laws that produce this result may be metaphysically necessary, and thus there is no element of luck. However, many philosophers will see this view of natural laws as paying a heavy price to avoid theism. It might appear that Street is arguing straightforwardly that evolutionary theory makes it improbable that humans would have objective moral knowledge. However, it is not evolution by itself that predicts the improbability of objective moral knowledge, but the conjunction of evolution and metaphysical naturalism. A good deal of the force of Street’s argument stems from the assumption that naturalism is true, and therefore that the evolutionary process is one that is unguided. Since it is not evolution by itself that poses a challenge to moral realism but the conjunction of evolution and metaphysical naturalism, then rejecting naturalism provides one way for the moral realist to solve the problem. It does appear that in a naturalistic universe we would expect a process of Darwinian evolution to select for a propensity for moral judgments that track survival and not objective moral truths. Mark Linville (2009, 391–446) has developed a detailed argument for the claim that it is difficult for metaphysical naturalists to develop a plausible evolutionary story as to how our moral judgments could have epistemological warrant. However, if we suppose that the evolutionary process has been guided by God, who has as one of his goals the creation of morally significant human creatures capable of enjoying a relation with God, then it would not seem at all accidental or even unlikely that God would ensure that humans have value beliefs that are largely correct.

Some philosophers believe that the randomness of Darwinian natural selection rules out the possibility of any kind of divine guidance being exercised through such a process. Some thinkers, including both some atheists and some proponents of what is called “creation science,” believe that evolution and God are rivals, mutually exclusive hypotheses about the origins of the natural world. What can be explained scientifically needs no religious explanation. However, this is far from obviously true; in fact, if theism is true it is clearly false. From a theistic perspective to think that God and science provide competing explanations fails to grasp the relationship between God and the natural world by conceiving of God as one more cause within that natural world. If God exists at all, God is not an entity within the natural world, but the creator of that natural world, with all of its causal processes. If God exists, God is the reason why there is a natural world and the reason for the existence of the causal processes of the natural world. In principle, therefore, a natural explanation can never preclude a theistic explanation. Any argument that natural explanations preclude or are in tension with theistic explanations will in fact be theological in character, since they will be grounded in assumptions about the kind of world God would create.

But what about the randomness that is a crucial part of the Darwinian story? The atheist might claim that because evolutionary theory posits that the process by which plants and animals have evolved is one that involves random genetic mutations, it cannot be guided, and thus God cannot have used evolutionary means to achieve his ends. However, this argument fails. It depends on an equivocation in what is meant by “random.” When scientists claim that genetic mutations are random, they do not mean that they are uncaused, or even that they are unpredictable from the point of view of biochemistry, but only that the mutations do not happen in response to the adaptational needs of the organism. It is entirely possible for a natural process to include randomness in that sense, even if the whole natural order is itself created and sustained by God. The sense of “randomness” required for evolutionary theory does not imply that the evolutionary process must be unguided. A God who is responsible for the laws of nature and the initial conditions that shape the evolutionary process could certainly ensure that the process achieved certain ends.

Like the other moral arguments for God’s existence, the argument from moral knowledge can easily be stated in a propositional form, and I believe Swinburne is right to hold that the argument is best construed as a probabilistic argument that appeals to God as providing a better explanation of moral knowledge than is possible in a naturalistic universe.

• Humans possess objective moral knowledge.
• Probably, if God does not exist, humans would not possess objective moral knowledge.

There is a kind of argument from moral knowledge also implicit in Angus Ritchie’s book From Morality to Metaphysics: The Theistic Implications of our Ethical Commitments (2012). Ritchie presses a kind of dilemma on non-theistic accounts of morality. Subjectivist theories such as expressivism can certainly make sense of the fact that we make the ethical judgments we do, but they empty morality of its objective authority. Objectivist theories that take morality seriously, however, have difficulty explaining our capacity to make true moral judgments, unless the process by which humans came to hold these capacities is one that is controlled by a being such as God.

The moral argument from knowledge will not be convincing to anyone who is committed to any form of expressivism or other non-objective metaethical theory, and clearly many philosophers find such views attractive. And there will surely be many philosophers who will judge that if moral objectivism implies theism or requires theism to be plausible, this is a reductio of objectivist views. Furthermore, non-theistic moral philosophers, whether naturalists or non-naturalists, have stories to tell about how moral knowledge might be possible. Nevertheless, there are real questions about the plausibility of these stories, and thus, some of those convinced that moral realism is true may judge that moral knowledge provides some support for theistic belief.

Many philosophers find Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy still offers a fruitful approach to ethics. Of the various forms of the “categorical imperative” that Kant offers, the formula that regards human beings as “ends in themselves” is especially attractive: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Kant 1785 [1964], 96). Many contemporary moral philosophers influenced by Kant, such as Christine Korsgaard (1996), see Kant as offering a “constructivist” metaethical position. Constructivism is supposed to offer a “third way” between moral realism and subjectivist views of morality. Like subjectivists, constructivists want to see morality as a human creation. However, like moral realists constructivists want to see moral questions as having objective answers. Constructivism is an attempt to develop an objective morality that is free of the metaphysical commitments of moral realism.

It is, however, controversial whether Kant himself was a constructivist in this sense. One reason to question whether this is the right way to read Kant follows from the fact that Kant himself did not see morality as free from metaphysical commitments. For example, Kant thought that it would be impossible for someone who believed that mechanistic determinism was the literal truth about himself to believe that he was a moral agent, since morality requires an autonomy that is incompatible with determinism. To see myself as a creature who has the kind of value Kant calls “dignity” I must not see myself merely as a machine-like product of the physical environment. Hence Kant thought that it was crucial for morality that his Critical Philosophy had shown that the deterministic perspective on humans is simply part of the “phenomenal world” that is the object of scientific knowledge, not the “noumenal reality” that it would be if some kind of scientific realism were the true metaphysical view. When we do science we see ourselves as determined, but science tells us only how the world appears, not how it really is. Recognizing this fact suggests that when Kant posits that humans have this intrinsic value he calls dignity, he is not “constructing” the value humans have, but recognizing the value beings of a certain kind must have. Humans can only have this kind of value if they are a particular kind of creature. Whether Kant himself was a moral realist or not, there are certainly elements in his philosophy that push in a realist direction.

If the claim that human persons have a kind of intrinsic dignity or worth is a true objective principle and if it provides a key foundational principle of morality, it is well worth asking what kinds of metaphysical implications the claim might have. This is the question that Mark Linville (2009, 417–446) pursues in the second moral argument he develops. Linville begins by noting that one could hardly hold that “human persons have intrinsic dignity” could be true if human persons do not exist. Clearly, some metaphysical positions do include a denial of the existence of human persons, such as forms of Absolute Monism which hold that only one Absolute Reality exists. However, it also seems to be the case that some forms of Scientific Naturalism are committed to the denial of “ persons as substantive selves that essentially possess a first-person point of view” (See Dennett 2006, 107). Daniel Dennett, for example, holds that persons will not be part of the ultimately true scientific account of things. Dennett holds that to think of humans as persons is simply to adopt a certain “stance” toward them that he calls the “intentional stance,” but it is clear that the kind of picture of humans we get when we think of them in this way does not correspond with their intrinsic metaphysical properties. It is not clear how systems towards which we adopt an “intentional stance” could be truly autonomous and thus have the kind of value Kant believes human persons have.

The argument from human dignity could be put into propositional form as follows:

• Human persons have a special kind of intrinsic value that we call dignity.
• The only (or best) explanation of the fact that humans possess dignity is that they are created by a supremely good God in God’s own image.
• Probably there is a supremely good God.

A naturalist may want to challenge premise (2) by finding some other strategy to explain human dignity. Michael Martin (2002), for example, has tried to suggest that moral judgments can be analyzed as the feelings of approval or disapproval of a perfectly impartial and informed observer. Linville (2009) objects that it is not clear how the feelings of such an observer could constitute the intrinsic worth of a person, since one would think that intrinsic properties would be non-relational and mind-independent. In any case, Linville notes that a “Euthyphro” problem lurks for such an ideal observer theory, since one would think that such an observer would judge a person to be intrinsically valuable because the person has intrinsic value.

Another strategy that is pursued by constructivists such as Korsgaard is to link the value ascribed to humans to the capacity for rational reflection. The idea is that insofar as I am committed to rational reflection, I must value myself as having this capacity, and consistently value others who have it as well. A similar strategy is found in Wielenberg’s form of ethical non-naturalism, since Wielenberg argues that it is necessarily true that any being with certain reflective capacities will have moral rights (Wielenberg, 2014, chapter 4). It is far from clear that human rationality provides an adequate ground for moral rights, however. Many people believe that young infants and people suffering from dementia still have this intrinsic dignity, but in both cases there is no capacity for rational reflection.

Some support for this criticism of the attempt to see reason as the basis of the value of humans can be found in Nicholas Wolterstorff’s recent work on justice (2007, especially Ch. 8). Wolterstorff in this work defends the claim that there are natural human rights, and that violating such rights is one way of acting unjustly towards a person. Why do humans have such rights? Wolterstorff says these rights are grounded in the basic worth or dignity that humans possess. When I seek to torture or kill an innocent human I am failing to respect this worth. If one asks why we should think humans possess such worth, Wolterstorff argues that the belief that humans have this quality was not only historically produced by Jewish and Christian conceptions of the human person, but even now cannot be defended apart from such a conception. In particular, he argues that attempts to argue that our worth stems from some excellence we possess such as reason will not explain the worth of infants or those with severe brain injuries or dementia.

Does a theistic worldview fare better in explaining the special value of human dignity? In a theistic universe God is himself seen as the supreme good. Indeed, theistic Platonists usually identify God with the Good. If God is himself a person, then this seems to be a commitment to the idea that personhood itself is something that must be intrinsically good. If human persons are made in God’s image, as both Judaism and Christianity affirm, then it would seem to follow that humans do have a kind of intrinsic value, just by way of being the kind of creatures they are.

This argument will of course be found unconvincing to many. Some will deny premise (1), either because they reject moral realism as a metaethical stance, or because they reject the normative claim that humans have any kind of special value or dignity. (Maybe they will even think that such a claim is a form of “speciesism.”). Others will find premise (2) suspect. They may be inclined to agree that human persons have a special dignity, but hold that the source of that dignity can be found in such human qualities as rationality. With respect to the status of infants and those suffering from dementia, the critic might bite the bullet and just accept the fact that human dignity does not extend to them, or else argue that the fact that infants and those suffering mental breakdown are part of a species whose members typically possess rationality merits them a special respect, even if they lack this quality as individuals. Others will find premise (2) doubtful because they find the theistic explanation of dignity unclear. Another alternative is to seek a Constructivist account of dignity, perhaps regarding the special status of humans as something we humans decide to extend to each other. Perhaps the strongest non-theistic alternative would be some form of ethical non-naturalism, in which one simply affirms that the claim that persons have a special dignity is an a priori truth requiring no explanation. In effect this is a decision for a non-theistic form of Platonism.

The proponent of the argument may well agree that claims about the special status of humans are true a priori , and thus also opt for some form of Platonism. However, the proponent of the argument will point out that some necessary truths can be explained by other necessary truths. The theist believes that these truths about the special status of humans tell us something about the kind of universe humans find themselves in. To say that humans are created by God is to say that personhood is not an ephemeral or accidental feature of the universe, because at bottom reality itself is personal (Mavrodes 1986).

As already noted, the most famous and perhaps most influential version of a moral argument for belief in God is found in Immanuel Kant (1788). Kant himself insisted that his argument was not a theoretical argument, but an argument grounded in practical reason. The conclusion of the argument is not “God exists” or “God probably exists” but “I (as a rational, moral agent) ought to believe that God exists.” We shall, however, see that there are some reasons to doubt that practical arguments can be neatly separated from theoretical arguments.

Kant’s version of the argument can be stated in different ways, but perhaps the following captures one plausible interpretation of the argument. Morality is grounded in pure practical reason, and the moral agent must act on the basis of maxims that can be rationally endorsed as universal principles. Moral actions are thus not determined by results or consequences but by the maxims on which they are based. However, all actions, including moral actions, necessarily aim at ends. Kant argues that the end that moral actions aim at is the “highest good,” which is a world in which both moral virtue and happiness are maximized, with happiness contingent on virtue. For Kant “ought implies can,” and so if I have an obligation to seek the highest good, then I must believe that it is possible to achieve such an end. However, I must seek the highest good only by acting in accordance with morality; no shortcuts to happiness are permissible. This seems to require that I believe that acting in accordance with morality will be causally efficacious in achieving the highest good. However, it is reasonable to believe that moral actions will be causally efficacious in this way only if the laws of causality are set up in such a way that these laws are conducive to the efficacy of moral action. Certainly both parts of the highest good seem difficult to achieve. We humans have weaknesses in our character that appear difficult if not impossible to overcome by our own efforts. Furthermore, as creatures we have subjective needs that must be satisfied if we are happy, but we have little empirical reason to think that these needs will be satisfied by moral actions even if we succeeded in becoming virtuous. If a person believes that the natural world is simply a non-moral machine with no moral purposiveness then that person would have no reason to believe that moral action could succeed because there is no a priori reason to think moral action will achieve the highest good and little empirical reason to believe this either. Kant thus concludes that a moral agent must “postulate” the existence of God as a rational presupposition of the moral life.

One problem with this argument is that many will deny that morality requires us to seek the highest good in Kant’s sense. Even if the Kantian highest good seems reasonable as an ideal, some will object that we have no obligation to achieve such a state, but merely to work towards realizing the closest approximation to such a state that is possible (See Adams 1987, 152). Without divine assistance, perhaps perfect virtue is unachievable, but in that case we cannot be obliged to realize such a state if there is no God. Perhaps we cannot hope that happiness will be properly proportioned to virtue in the actual world if God does not exist, but then our obligation can only be to realize as much happiness as can be attained through moral means. Kant would doubtless reject this criticism, since on his view the ends of morality are given directly to pure practical reason a priori , and we are not at liberty to adjust those ends on the basis of empirical beliefs. However, few contemporary philosophers would share Kant’s confident view of reason here, and thus to many the criticism has force. Even Kant admits at one point that full-fledged belief in God is not rationally necessary, since one could conceivably seek the highest good if one merely believes that God’s existence is possible (Kant, 1781–1787, 651).

Another way of interpreting Kant’s argument puts more stress on the connection between an individual’s desire for happiness and the obligation to do what is morally right. Morality requires me to sacrifice my personal happiness if that is necessary to do what is right. Yet it is a psychological fact that humans necessarily desire their own happiness. In such a state it looks as if human moral agents will be torn by what Henry Sidgwick called the “dualism of the practical reason” (1884, 401). Reason both requires humans to seek their own happiness and to sacrifice it. Sidgwick himself noted that only if there is a God can we hope that this dualism will be resolved, so that those who seek to act morally will in the long run also be acting so as to advance their own happiness and well-being. (Interestingly, Sidgwick himself does not endorse this argument, but he clearly sees this problem as part of the appeal of theism.) A contemporary argument similar to this one has been developed by C. Stephen Layman (2002).

The critic of this form of the Kantian argument may reply that Kantian morality sees duty as something that must be done regardless of the consequences, and thus a truly moral person cannot make his or her commitment to morality contingent on the achievement of happiness. From a Kantian point of view, this reply seems right; Kant unequivocally affirms that moral actions must be done for the sake of duty and not from any desire for personal reward. Nevertheless, especially for any philosopher willing to endorse any form of eudaimonism, seeing myself as inevitably sacrificing what I cannot help but desire for the sake of duty does seem problematic. As John Hare affirms, “If we are to endorse wholeheartedly the long-term shape of our lives, we have to see this shape as consistent with our happiness” (1996, 88).

The critic may reply to this by simply accepting the lamentable fact that there is something tragic or even absurd about the human condition. The world may not be the world we wish it was, but that does not give us any reason to believe it is different from what it is. If there is a tension between the demands of morality and self-interest, then this may simply be a brute fact that must be faced.

This reply raises an issue for all forms of practical or pragmatic arguments for belief. Many philosophers insist that rational belief must be grounded solely in theoretical evidence. The fact that it would be better for me to believe p does not in itself give me any reason to believe p. This criticism is aimed not merely at Kant, but at other practical moral arguments. For example, Robert Adams argues that if humans believe there is no moral order to the universe, then they will become demoralized in their pursuit of morality, which is morally undesirable (1987, 151). The atheist might concede that atheism is (somewhat) demoralizing, but deny that this provides any reason to believe there is a moral order to the universe. Similarly, Linda Zagzebski (1987) argues that morality will not be a rational enterprise unless good actions increase the amount of good in the world. However, given that moral actions often involve the sacrifice of happiness, there is no reason to believe moral action will increase the good unless there is a power transcendent of human activity working on the side of the good. Here the atheist may claim that moral action does increase the good because such actions always increase good character. However, even if that reply fails the atheist may again simply admit that there may be something tragic or absurd about the human condition, and the fact that we may wish things were different is not a reason to believe that they are. So the problem must be faced: Are practical arguments merely rationalized wish-fulfillment?

The theist might respond to this kind of worry in several ways. The first thing to be said is that the fact that a naturalistic view of the universe implies that the universe must be tragic or absurd, if correct, would itself be an important and interesting conclusion. However, apart from this, it makes a great deal of difference how one construes what we might call the background epistemic situation. If one believes that our theoretical evidence favors atheism, then it seems plausible to hold that one ought to maintain a naturalistic view, even if it is practically undesirable that the world have such a character. In that case a practical argument for religious belief could be judged a form of wish-fulfillment. However, this does not seem to be the way those who support such a practical argument see the situation. Kant affirms that the limits of reason established in The Critique of Pure Reason would silence all objections to morality and religion “in Socratic fashion, namely, by the clearest proof of the ignorance of the objectors.” (1781, 1787, 30. See also 530–531) In fact, the situation actually favors theism, since Kant holds that theoretical reason sees value in the concept of God as a regulative ideal, even though God’s existence cannot be theoretically affirmed as knowledge. If we appeal to God’s will to explain what happens in the natural order, we undermine both science and religion, since in that case we would no longer seek empirical evidence for causality and we would make God into a finite object in the natural world (1781, 1787, 562–563). However, as a regulative ideal, the concept of God is one that theoretical reason finds useful: “The assumption of a supreme intelligence, as the one and only cause of the universe, though in the idea alone, can therefore always benefit reason and can never injure it” (1781, 1787, 560). There is a sense in which theoretical reason itself inclines towards affirmation of God, because it must assume that reality is rationally knowable: “If one wishes to achieve systematic knowledge of the world, he ought to regard it as if it were created by a supreme reason.” (Kant 1786, 298) Although theoretical reason cannot affirm the existence of God, it finds it useful to think of the natural world as having the kinds of characteristics it would have if God did exist. Thus, if rational grounds for belief in God come from practical reason, theoretical reason will raise no objections.

For Kant the argument from practical reason for belief in God is not a form of wish-fulfillment because its ground is not an arbitrary desire or wish but “a real need associated with reason” (Kant, 1786, 296). Human beings are not purely theoretical spectators of the universe, but agents. It is not always rational or even possible to refrain from action, and yet action presupposes beliefs about the way things are (For a good interpretation and defense of this view of Kant on the relation between action and belief, see Wood 1970, 17–25). Thus, in some cases suspension of judgment is not possible. The critic may object that a person may act as if p were true without believing p. However, it is not clear that this advice to distinguish action on the basis of p and belief that p can always be followed. For one thing, it seems empirically the case that one way of acquiring belief that p is simply to begin to act as if p were true. Hence, to begin to act as if p were true is at least to embark upon a course of action that makes belief in p more likely. Second, there may well be a sense of “belief” in which “acting as if p were true” is sufficient to constitute belief. This is obviously the case on pragmatist accounts of belief. But even those who reject a general pragmatic account of belief may well find something like this appealing with respect to religious belief. Many religious believers hold that the best way to measure a person’s religious faith is in terms of the person’s actions. Thus, a person who is willing to act on the basis of a religious conception, especially if those actions are risky or costly, is truly a religious believer, even if that person is filled with doubt and anxiety. Such a person might well be construed as more truly a believer than a person who smugly “assents” to religious doctrines but is unwilling to act on them.

Perhaps the right way to think of practical moral arguments is not to see them as justifying belief without evidence, but as shifting the amount of evidence seen as necessary. This is the lesson some would draw from the phenomenon of “pragmatic encroachment” that has been much discussed in recent epistemology. Here is an example of pragmatic encroachment:

You: I am about to replace the ceiling fan in the kitchen. Spouse: Did you turn off the main electrical power to the house? You: Yes. Spouse: If you forgot you could electrocute yourself. You: I better go back and check. (See McBrayer 2014, Rizzieri 2013).

A plausible interpretation of this scenario is that ordinarily claims such as the one I made, based on memory, are justified, and count as knowledge. However, in this situation, the stakes are raised because my life is at risk, and my knowledge is lost because the pragmatic situation has “encroached” on the normal truth-oriented conditions for knowledge. Pragmatic encroachment is controversial and the idea of such encroachment is rejected by some epistemologists. However, defenders hold that it is reasonable to consider the pragmatic stakes in considering evidence for a belief that underlies significant action (see Fantl and McGrath 2007). If this is correct, then it seems reasonable to consider the pragmatic situation in determining how much evidence is sufficient to justify religious beliefs. In theory the adjustment could go in either direction, depending on what costs are associated with a mistake and on which side those costs lie.

In any case it is not clear that practical moral arguments can always be clearly distinguished from theoretical moral arguments. The reason this is so is that in many cases the practical situation described seems itself to be or involve a kind of evidence for the truth of the belief being justified. Take, for example, Kant’s classic argument. One thing Kant’s argument does is call to our attention that it would be enormously odd to believe that human beings are moral creatures subject to an objective moral law, but also to believe that the universe that humans inhabit is indifferent to morality. In other words, the existence of human persons understood as moral beings can itself be understood as a piece of evidence about the character of the universe humans find themselves in. Peter Byrne (2013, 1998) has criticized practical arguments on the grounds that they presuppose something like the following proposition: “The world is likely to be organized so as to meet our deepest human needs.” Byrne objects that this premise is likely to be false if there is no God and thus arguments that assume it appear circular. However, it is not clear that only those who already believe in God will find this premise attractive. The reason for this is that humans are themselves part of the natural universe, and it seems a desirable feature of a metaphysical view that it explain (rather than explain away) features of human existence that seem real and important.

It seems likely therefore that any appeal to a practical argument will include some theoretical component as well, even if that component is not always made explicit. Nevertheless, this does not mean that practical arguments do not have some important and distinctive features. For Kant it was important that religious beliefs stem from practical reason. For if religious belief were grounded solely in theoretical reason, then such belief would have to conform to “extrinsic and arbitrary legislation.” (Kant 1790, 131) Kant thinks such a religion would be one grounded in “fear and submission,” and thus it is good that religious belief is motivated mainly by a free moral act by which the “final end of our being” is presented to us. (1790, 159) For any practical argument makes religious belief existential; the issue is not merely what I believe to be true about the universe but how I shall live my life in that universe.

It seems clear that no version of the moral argument constitutes a “proof” of God’s existence. Each version contains premises that many reasonable thinkers reject. However, this does not mean the arguments have no force. One might think of each version of the argument as attempting to spell out the “cost” of rejecting the conclusion. Some philosophers will certainly be willing to pay the cost, and indeed have independent reasons for doing so. However, it would certainly be interesting and important if one became convinced that atheism required one to reject moral realism altogether, or to embrace an implausible account of how moral knowledge is acquired. For those who think that some version or versions of the arguments have force, the cumulative case for theistic belief may be raised by such arguments.

• Adams, R., 1987, “Moral Arguments for Theism,” in The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology , New York: Oxford University Press, 144–163.
• –––, 1999, Finite and Infinite Goods , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Aquinas, St. Thomas, 1265–1274 [1948], Summa Theologica , New York: Benziger Brothers.
• Baggett, D., and Walls, J., 2011, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, The Moral Argument: A History , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Balfour, A., 1915, Theism and Humanism , London: Hodder and Stoughton.
• Byrne, P., 2013, “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Spring 2013 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/moral-arguments-god/ >.
• –––, 1998, The Moral Interpretation of Religion , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Davis, R. and Franks, W., 2015, “Counterpossibles and the ‘Terrible’ Divine Command Deity,” Religious Studies , 51(1): 1–19.
• De Burgh, W. G., From Morality to Religion: Being the Gifford Lectures, Delivered at the University of St. Andrews, 1938 , Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press.
• Dennett, D., 2006, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon , New York: Penguin.
• Devine, P., 1989, Relativism, Nihilism, and God , Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
• Enoch, D., 2011, Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Evans, C. S., 2010, Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, God and Moral Obligation , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2021, “Does Darwall’s Morality of Accountability Require Moral Realism? (And Would It Be Strengthened by Adding God to the Story?),” Religions , 12(3), first online 11 March 2021, doi:10.3390/rel12030187
• Fantl, J., and McGrath, M., 2007, “On Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 75(3): 558–589.
• Farrer, A., 2012, Reflective Faith: Essays in Philosophical Theology , Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
• Flannagan, M., 2017, “Robust Ethics and the Autonomy Thesis,” Philosophia Christi , 19(2): 345–362.
• –––, 2021a, “The Psychopath Objection to Divine Command Theory: Another Reply to Erik Wielenberg,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 13(3): 157–170.
• –––, 2021, “Why the Horrendous Deeds Objection Is Still a Bad Argument,” Sophia , 61(2): 399–418.
• Flew, A., 1976, The Presumption of Atheism and Other Philosophical Essays on God, Freedom, and Immortality , New York: Barnes and Noble.
• Garcia, R., and King, N., 2009, Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Press.
• Hare, J., 1996, The Moral Gap , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2009, God and Morality: A Philosophical History , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• –––, 2011, Why Bother Being Good: The Place of God in the Moral Life , Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
• –––, 2015, God’s Command , New York: Oxford University Press.
• James, W., 1897 [1907], The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy , New York: Longmans Green and Co.
• Kahane, Guy, 2014, “Evolutionary Debunking Arguments,” Noûs , 45(1): 103–125.
• Kant, I., 1781, 1787 [1965], Critique of Pure Reason , trans. Norman Kemp Smith, New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1785 [1964], Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals , trans H. J. Paton, New York: Harper and Row.
• –––, 1786 [1949], What Is Orientation in Thinking? in Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy , Lewis White Beck (trans. and ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1788 [1956], Critique of Practical Reason , trans. Lewis White Beck, Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill.
• –––, 1790 [1952], Critique of Judgment , trans. James Creed Meredith, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Korsgaard, C., 1996, The Sources of Normativity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Layman, C. S., 2002, “God and the Moral Order,” Faith and Philosophy 19, 304–316.
• Lewis, C. S., 1952, Mere Christianity . London: Collins.
• Linville, M., 2009, “The Moral Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology , first edition, W. L. Craig, J. P. Mooreland (eds.), West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Liu, X., 2016, “A Moral Reason to be a Mere Theist: Improving the Practical Argument,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 79(2): 113–132.
• Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong , Hammondsworth: Penguin.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst NY: Prometheus Books.
• Matthews, W. R., 1921, Studies in Christian Philosophy , London: Macmillan.
• Mavrodes, G., 1986, “Religion and the Queerness of Morality,” in Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment: New Essays in the Philosophy of Religion , eds. Robert Audi and William J. Wainwright, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 213–226.
• McBrayer, J., 2014, “Pragmatic Encroachment, Religious Belief, and Practice,” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , March 19.
• Mill, J., 1874, Nature, The Utility of Religion, and Theism , Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer: London.
• Morriston, W., 2009, “What if God Commanded Something Terrible? A Worry for Divine-command Meta-ethics,” Religious Studies , 45(3): 249–267.
• Morriston, W., 2016, “‘Terrible’ Divine Commands Revisited: A Response to Davis and Franks,” Religious Studies , 52(3): 361–373.
• Newman, J. H., 1870, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent , London: Burns, Oates, and Co.
• Nietzsche, F., 1887 [2003], The Genealogy of Morals , translated by Horace Barnett Samuel, New York: Courier Dover Publications.
• Oppy, G., 2014, Best Argument Against God , Hampshire: Palgrave Pivot.
• Osborn, R., 2017, Humanism and the Death of God: Searching for the Good After Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Owen, H. P., 1965, The Moral Argument for Christian Theism , London: George Allen and Unwin.
• Plantinga, A., 2000, Warranted Christian Belief , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pringle-Pattison, A. S., The Idea of God in Light of Recent Philosophy: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in the Years 1912 and 1913 , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pruss, A., 2009, “Another Step in Divine Command Dialectics,” Faith and Philosophy , 26: 432–439.
• Quinn, P., 1978, Divine Commands and Moral Requirements , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1979, “Divine Command Ethics: A Causal Theory,” in Divine Command Morality: Historical and Contemporary Readings , edited by Janine Idziak, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 305–325.
• Rashdall, H., 1920, “The Moral Argument for Personal Immortality,” in King’s College Lectures on Immortality , London: University of London Press.
• Ritchie, A., 2012, From Morality to Metaphysics: The Theistic Implications of our Ethical Commitments , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rizzieri, A., 2013, Pragmatic Encroachment, Religious Belief and Practice , Kindle edition, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Schellenberg, J. L., 1993, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason , 1 st edition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R., 2003, Moral Realism: A Defense , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2012, “Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy , 7(1): 1–37.
• Sidgwick, H., 1884, Methods of Ethics , London: Macmillan and Co.
• Sorley, W., 1918, Moral Values and the Idea of God , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Street, S., 2006, “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value,” Philosophical Studies , 127(1): 109–166.
• Swinburne, R., 2004, The Existence of God , 2 nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Taylor, A. E., 1930, The Faith of a Moralist , London: Macmillan.
• –––, 1945, Does God Exist? , London: Macmillan.
• Webb, C., 2012, Studies in the History of Natural Theology , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2010, “On the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality,” Ethics 120(3): 441–464.
• –––, 2014, Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2020, “Divine Command Theory and Psychopathy,” Religious Studies 56(4): 542–57.
• Wolterstorff, N., 2007, Justice: Rights and Wrongs , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Wood, A., 1970, Kant’s Moral Religion , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Zagzebski, L., 2004, “Does Ethics Need God?” Faith and Philosophy , 4: 294–303.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Byrne, Peter, “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/moral-arguments-god/ >. [This was the previous entry on moral arguments for the existence of God in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
• Divine Command Theory , entry by Michael Austin, in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Aquinas, Thomas | Darwinism | Kant, Immanuel: and Hume on morality | Kant, Immanuel: philosophy of religion | -->Mackie, John Leslie --> | metaethics | Mill, John Stuart | moral anti-realism | moral epistemology | moral non-naturalism | moral realism | naturalism: moral | Nietzsche, Friedrich | Platonism: in metaphysics | pragmatic arguments and belief in God | religious experience | Sidgwick, Henry | voluntarism, theological

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Trent Dougherty and Mark Linville for reading a draft of this essay and making many useful suggestions. Matthew Wilson also deserves thanks for tracking many bibliographical references and page numbers.

Copyright © 2022 by C. Stephen Evans < C_Stephen_Evans @ baylor . edu > David Baggett < dbaggett @ hbu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Happy Lives and the Highest Good: an essay on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Lear, Gabriel Richardson, Happy Lives and the Highest Good: an essay on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics , Princeton University Press, 2004, 256pp, $35.00 (hbk), ISBN 069114668.

Reviewed by Julia Annas, University of Arizona

Most of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics discusses the life of moral virtue, exercised in accordance with practical reasoning, a life taken in the opening passages to be necessary for happiness or eudaimonia , though not sufficient, since some measure of external goods is also required. This is the position regarded as Aristotelian in ancient ethical debate throughout the following period. Our text of the Nicomachean Ethics , however, ends with a passage urging that a life of human happiness lies in contemplation or study ( theoria ) of the highest objects of the intellect.

Can we resolve this puzzle without examining what kind of text our Nicomachean Ethics is? Were the passages we read as Book I and Book X even intended to form part of the same philosophical work? Here we find a range of responses, at one extreme of which is Jonathan Barnes, who in his discussion of the ancient transmission of Aristotle’s works, puts the point with characteristic force: ‘[O]ur EN is an absurdity, surely put together by a desperate scribe or an unscrupulous bookseller and not united by an author or an editor’. 1 Gabriel Richardson Lear assumes that the Nicomachean Ethics is a literary unity; she regards it as containing a progressive argument (p 146) entitling her, for example, to use passages in Book X to illuminate the earlier discussion of to kalon and suggesting that the reason Aristotle is not more informative in the earlier passage is that ‘he is not fully in the position to do so’ until Book X. 2 This puts her at or near the opposite extreme from Barnes, but she nowhere defends her assumptions about the text, and explicitly (p 5) lays aside the relationship of the Nicomachea n to the Eudemian version. Given the very different interpretative assumptions that scholars make about the text, it would have been helpful to have had serious discussion of the literary problems our text offers.

Lear uses Aristotle’s other works to interpret crucial parts of his views on happiness, taking the Nicomachean Ethics to be understood properly only in the context of Aristotle’s physical and metaphysical works, rather than as a self-standing work. She also at several places suggests interesting deep affinities between Aristotle and Plato. This gives her a distinctive approach to the much-fought-over discussion of our final end in the opening passages of the Ethics . She joins the currently growing number of scholars finding Aristotle’s final end to be monistic, rather than inclusivist. Her account of Book I argues that the inclusivist approach is wrong because for Aristotle our telos should be taken to be the ‘technical’ (p 3) notion we find in the Physics and biological works: a normative standard for the performance of an activity. The human telos will thus not be what puts an end to desire but will rather be the goal appropriate to our nature and essence, something which determines the success and value of human activities. Given this account of our telos , we find that when an end is for the sake of another end, this must mean ‘at least that the higher ends provide the criteria of success for the subordinate ones’ (p 17). Lower ends are given their value by their role in contributing to the higher ends. Since happiness is the ‘most final’ end, we are led to an account of our highest end as monistic, with all other ends subordinate to success in achieving it.

Lear follows through the apparently drastic result that there appears to be no place in this conception for what she calls ‘mid-level ends’, ends choiceworthy for themselves and also for their contribution to our final end. She ingeniously finds such a place via the notion of ‘approximation’: ends such as virtuous activity can be choiceworthy for their own sakes and also by virtue of approximating the activity constituting our final end. This notion of approximation is also taken from the physical and biological works, including the way the Prime Mover functions as a final cause and the way that the reproduction of animals approximates the activity of the Prime Mover, at De Anima II 4.

Approximation gives us a way in which a lower end can be related to a higher one that is neither instrumental nor constitutive, and this paves the way for an ingenious solution to the problem of mid-level ends on a monistic interpretation. Morally virtuous activity approximates contemplation, according to Lear, and thus we can reconcile taking contemplation to be our monistic final end with the fact that most of the Ethics is devoted to studying practical reasoning in the exercise of moral virtue. Our final end is contemplation, but the exercise of moral virtue is choiceworthy for its own sake, since it is an approximation of contemplation.

Readers may be worried that, as Lear admits, ‘Aristotle never explicitly says that excellent practical reasoning is good because its essence is defined with reference to wise contemplation’ (p 90). The second half of the book attempts to meet these worries. In Chapter 5 she argues that theoretical and practical reasoning are both to be understood as aiming at truth in different ways, such as precision, in terms of which theoretical reasoning is superior. This is the most speculative part of the book, and, although the ideas are suggestive and interesting, much remains unclear in the claims that Aristotle is talking about ‘living truthfully’ (p 99) and attaining theoretical and practical truthfulness. Lear is clearer in her account of the moral virtues (she deals with courage, temperance and greateness of soul), in a way elucidating how their practice might be understood as an approximation of theoretical contemplation. She focuses on the fine or kalon as the object of virtuous action, giving all virtuous activity an object which is an object of practice determined as what it is by a conception of what is objectively good for humans; this is what she claims as the basis for the way the fine is elsewhere said to be the principle of order, symmetry and boundedness. Each moral choice thus shows that the moral agent has some conception of human flourishing; since this is in fact contemplation, ‘morally virtuous actions will be fine and worth choosing for their own sakes because they are appropriate to the philosopher, whether the virtuous agent understands this or not’. Courageous actions, for example, express a commitment to ‘the excellent rational use of a leisurely citizen’s life’ (p 149, 159); the citizen soldier thinks death in battle worth it because of his commitment as a citizen to the common life of the city; and this in turn is worth it because it allows for leisure, whose best use is contemplation. Only the philosopher will have full understanding of the point of virtuous actions, and this enables Lear in her final chapter to avoid the usual ‘competition’ between the active life and the life of contemplation, since doing everything for the sake of contemplation emerges from a deeper understanding of moral virtue rather than philosophers’ self-interested modification of it.

Lear is quite explicit that the soldier dying on the battlefield may not realize that ‘the exercise of courage approximates contemplation by being structurally similar to it, insofar as it is an exercise of practical reason and truthfulness’ (p 161); only philosophers will understand that. The same is true of any exercise of practical reasoning in virtue: the courageous, the temperate and those with greatness of soul need not understand that what they do is done for the sake of contemplation (though to be virtuous it has to be done for the sake of the fine, something which requires understanding the nature of practical reasoning and its proper aims). Most of us most of the time, even if we make progress in virtue, are thus missing an understanding of what ultimately makes our actions valuable. Lear seems to think that this result is not so strange when we bear in mind that the exercise of practical reason is choiceworthy for itself in being an approximation of theoretical reasoning. But problems remain which Lear’s discussion stimulates without settling.

One is the question of the audience. Lear makes casual reference to Aristotle’s audience ‘who have been raised in fine habits’ (e.g., p 121). On Lear’s view the audience for the Ethics will radically fail to understand it if they attend to it alone. They will understand it only if they come equipped with knowledge of Aristotle’s physical and metaphysical works, and prepared to interpret the work from the beginning in the light of ideas which are expressed only at the end—only if, that is, they come equipped with Lear’s own interpretative batteries. Now this is certainly possible: the fact that the Ethics does not contain the crucial notions in Lear’s interpretation does not mean that we can understand everything in it by studying it alone. Nonetheless, the distance between Lear’s interpretation and interpretations which treat the discussion of moral virtue as self-standing rather than radically underdescribed suggests the need for some attention to the question of how the Ethics was intended to be read, and by whom. These are interestingly different problems from the ones usually thought to arise from the fact that Book X turns up in our Nicomachean Ethics , but they remain problems nonetheless.

The book is rewarding for its close study of several of Aristotle’s most vexed passages in an accessible and imaginative way; particularly worthwhile are the discussions of self-sufficiency (bringing in the related passages from Plato’s Philebus ), the kalon and ‘greatness of soul’. The book is most likely to convince of its main theses those who share its substantial methodological assumptions, and it would have been helpful to have had explicit discussion of these. The book will also be valuable in furthering examination of deep similarities between Aristotle’s ethical thought and that of Plato, which I have not had the scope to examine here.

1 Barnes adds in a footnote: ‘That our EN is not a unity is beyond controversy—the existence of two treatments of pleasure is enough to prove the fact. The only questions concern who invented our text, and when, and from what materials, and for what motives.’ ( p 58-9 of Jonathan Barnes, ‘Roman Aristotle,’ in Jonathan Barnes and Miriam Griffin (eds), Philosophia Togata II:Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford University Press 1997, pp 1-69.)

2 She also claims (apparently on the basis of her overall interpretation) that Book VI has a ‘protreptic’ structure (pp 93-4).

Ethics and Morality

Ethics and abortion, two opposing arguments on the morality of abortion..

Posted June 7, 2019 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

Abortion is, once again, center stage in our political debates. According to the Guttmacher Institute, over 350 pieces of legislation restricting abortion have been introduced. Ten states have signed bans of some sort, but these are all being challenged. None of these, including "heartbeat" laws, are currently in effect. 1

Much has been written about abortion from a philosophical perspective. Here, I'd like to summarize what I believe to be the best argument on each side of the abortion debate. To be clear, I'm not advocating either position here; I'm simply trying to bring some clarity to the issues. The focus of these arguments is on the morality of abortion, not its constitutional or legal status. This is important. One might believe, as many do, that at least some abortions are immoral but that the law should not restrict choice in this realm of life. Others, of course, argue that abortion is immoral and should be illegal in most or all cases.

"Personhood"

Personhood refers to the moral status of an entity. If an entity is a person , in this particular sense, it has full moral status . A person, then, has rights , and we have obligations to that person. This includes the right to life. Both of the arguments I summarize here focus on the question of whether or not the fetus is a person, or whether or not it is the type of entity that has the right to life. This is an important aspect to focus on, because what a thing is determines how we should treat it, morally speaking. For example, if I break a leg off of a table, I haven't done anything wrong. But if I break a puppy's leg, I surely have done something wrong. I have obligations to the puppy, given what kind of creature it is, that I don't have to a table, or any other inanimate object. The issue, then, is what kind of thing a fetus is, and what that entails for how we ought to treat it.

A Pro-Choice Argument

I believe that the best type of pro-choice argument focuses on the personhood of the fetus. Mary Ann Warren has argued that fetuses are not persons; they do not have the right to life. 2 Therefore, abortion is morally permissible throughout the entire pregnancy . To see why, Warren argues that persons have the following traits:

• Consciousness: awareness of oneself, the external world, the ability to feel pain.
• Reasoning: a developed ability to solve fairly complex problems.
• Ability to communicate: on a variety of topics, with some depth.
• Self-motivated activity: ability to choose what to do (or not to do) in a way that is not determined by genetics or the environment .
• Self-concept : see themselves as _____; e.g. Kenyan, female, athlete , Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc.

The key point for Warren is that fetuses do not have any of these traits. Therefore, they are not persons. They do not have a right to life, and abortion is morally permissible. You and I do have these traits, therefore we are persons. We do have rights, including the right to life.

One problem with this argument is that we now know that fetuses are conscious at roughly the midpoint of a pregnancy, given the development timeline of fetal brain activity. Given this, some have modified Warren's argument so that it only applies to the first half of a pregnancy. This still covers the vast majority of abortions that occur in the United States, however.

A Pro-Life Argument

The following pro-life argument shares the same approach, focusing on the personhood of the fetus. However, this argument contends that fetuses are persons because in an important sense they possess all of the traits Warren lists. 3

At first glance, this sounds ridiculous. At 12 weeks, for example, fetuses are not able to engage in reasoning, they don't have a self-concept, nor are they conscious. In fact, they don't possess any of these traits.

Or do they?

In one sense, they do. To see how, consider an important distinction, the distinction between latent capacities vs. actualized capacities. Right now, I have the actualized capacity to communicate in English about the ethics of abortion. I'm demonstrating that capacity right now. I do not, however, have the actualized capacity to communicate in Spanish on this issue. I do, however, have the latent capacity to do so. If I studied Spanish, practiced it with others, or even lived in a Spanish-speaking nation for a while, I would likely be able to do so. The latent capacity I have now to communicate in Spanish would become actualized.

Here is the key point for this argument: Given the type of entities that human fetuses are, they have all of the traits of persons laid out by Mary Anne Warren. They do not possess these traits in their actualized form. But they have them in their latent form, because of their human nature. Proponents of this argument claim that possessing the traits of personhood, in their latent form, is sufficient for being a person, for having full moral status, including the right to life. They say that fetuses are not potential persons, but persons with potential. In contrast to this, Warren and others maintain that the capacities must be actualized before one is person.

The Abortion Debate

There is much confusion in the abortion debate. The existence of a heartbeat is not enough, on its own, to confer a right to life. On this, I believe many pro-lifers are mistaken. But on the pro-choice side, is it ethical to abort fetuses as a way to select the gender of one's child, for instance?

We should not focus solely on the fetus, of course, but also on the interests of the mother, father, and society as a whole. Many believe that in order to achieve this goal, we need to provide much greater support to women who may want to give birth and raise their children, but choose not to for financial, psychological, health, or relationship reasons; that adoption should be much less expensive, so that it is a live option for more qualified parents; and that quality health care should be accessible to all.

I fear , however, that one thing that gets lost in all of the dialogue, debate, and rhetoric surrounding the abortion issue is the nature of the human fetus. This is certainly not the only issue. But it is crucial to determining the morality of abortion, one way or the other. People on both sides of the debate would do well to build their views with this in mind.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-abortion-bans-2019-signed-effect/story?id=63172532

Mary Ann Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," originally in Monist 57:1 (1973), pp. 43-61. Widely anthologized.

This is a synthesis of several pro-life arguments. For more, see the work of Robert George and Francis Beckwith on these issues.

Michael W. Austin, Ph.D. , is a professor of philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• America’s Abortion Quandary

2. Social and moral considerations on abortion

Table of contents.

• Abortion at various stages of pregnancy 
• Abortion and circumstances of pregnancy 
• Parental notification for minors seeking abortion
• Penalties for abortions performed illegally 
• Public views of what would change the number of abortions in the U.S.
• A majority of Americans say women should have more say in setting abortion policy in the U.S.
• How do certain arguments about abortion resonate with Americans?
• In their own words: How Americans feel about abortion 
• Personal connections to abortion 
• Religion’s impact on views about abortion
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms: Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that abortion is morally wrong in  most  cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable most of the time. About an additional one-in-five do not consider abortion a moral issue.

There are wide differences on this question by political party and religious affiliation. Among Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party, most say that abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, meanwhile, only about three-in-ten (29%) hold a similar view. About four-in-ten Democrats say abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say abortion is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). And among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

There is strong alignment between people’s views of whether abortion is morally wrong and whether it should be illegal. For example, among U.S. adults who take the view that abortion should be illegal in all cases without exception, fully 86% also say abortion is always morally wrong. The prevailing view among adults who say abortion should be legal in all circumstances is that abortion is not a moral issue (44%), though notable shares of this group also say it is morally acceptable in all (27%) or most (22%) cases. 

Most Americans who say abortion should be illegal with some exceptions take the view that abortion is morally wrong in  most  cases (69%). Those who say abortion should be legal with some exceptions are somewhat more conflicted, with 43% deeming abortion morally acceptable in most cases and 26% saying it is morally wrong in most cases; an additional 24% say it is not a moral issue. 

The survey also asked respondents who said abortion is morally wrong in at least some cases whether there are situations where abortion should still be legal  despite  being morally wrong. Roughly half of U.S. adults (48%) say that there are, in fact, situations where abortion is morally wrong but should still be legal, while just 22% say that whenever abortion is morally wrong, it should also be illegal. An additional 28% either said abortion is morally acceptable in all cases or not a moral issue, and thus did not receive the follow-up question.

Across both political parties and all major Christian subgroups – including Republicans and White evangelicals – there are substantially more people who say that there are situations where abortion should still be  legal  despite being morally wrong than there are who say that abortion should always be  illegal  when it is morally wrong.

Asked about the impact a number of policy changes would have on the number of abortions in the U.S., nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say “more support for women during pregnancy, such as financial assistance or employment protections” would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. Six-in-ten say the same about expanding sex education and similar shares say more support for parents (58%), making it easier to place children for adoption in good homes (57%) and passing stricter abortion laws (57%) would have this effect. 

While about three-quarters of White evangelical Protestants (74%) say passing stricter abortion laws would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., about half of religiously unaffiliated Americans (48%) hold this view. Similarly, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say this (67% vs. 49%, respectively). By contrast, while about seven-in-ten unaffiliated adults (69%) say expanding sex education would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., only about half of White evangelicals (48%) say this. Democrats also are substantially more likely than Republicans to hold this view (70% vs. 50%). 

Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to say support for parents – such as paid family leave or more child care options – would reduce the number of abortions in the country (64% vs. 53%, respectively), while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say making adoption into good homes easier would reduce abortions (64% vs. 52%).

Majorities across both parties and other subgroups analyzed in this report say that more support for women during pregnancy would reduce the number of abortions in America.

More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say women should have more say than men when it comes to setting policies around abortion in this country – including 42% who say women should have “a lot” more say. About four-in-ten (39%) say men and women should have equal say in abortion policies, and 3% say men should have more say than women. 

Six-in-ten women and about half of men (51%) say that women should have more say on this policy issue. 

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say women should have more say than men in setting abortion policy (70% vs. 41%). Similar shares of Protestants (48%) and Catholics (51%) say women should have more say than men on this issue, while the share of religiously unaffiliated Americans who say this is much higher (70%).

Seeking to gauge Americans’ reactions to several common arguments related to abortion, the survey presented respondents with six statements and asked them to rate how well each statement reflects their views on a five-point scale ranging from “extremely well” to “not at all well.” 

The list included three statements sometimes cited by individuals wishing to protect a right to abortion: “The decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman,” “If legal abortions are too hard to get, then women will seek out unsafe abortions from unlicensed providers,” and “If legal abortions are too hard to get, then it will be more difficult for women to get ahead in society.” The first two of these resonate with the greatest number of Americans, with about half (53%) saying each describes their views “extremely” or “very” well. In other words, among the statements presented in the survey, U.S. adults are most likely to say that women alone should decide whether to have an abortion, and that making abortion illegal will lead women into unsafe situations.

The three other statements are similar to arguments sometimes made by those who wish to restrict access to abortions: “Human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights,” “If legal abortions are too easy to get, then people won’t be as careful with sex and contraception,” and “If legal abortions are too easy to get, then some pregnant women will be pressured into having an abortion even when they don’t want to.” 

Fewer than half of Americans say each of these statements describes their views extremely or very well. Nearly four-in-ten endorse the notion that “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” (26% say this describes their views extremely well, 12% very well), while about a third say that “if legal abortions are too easy to get, then people won’t be as careful with sex and contraception” (20% extremely well, 15% very well).

When it comes to statements cited by proponents of abortion rights, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to identify with all three of these statements, as are religiously unaffiliated Americans compared with Catholics and Protestants. Women also are more likely than men to express these views – and especially more likely to say that decisions about abortion should fall solely to pregnant women and that restrictions on abortion will put women in unsafe situations. Younger adults under 30 are particularly likely to express the view that if legal abortions are too hard to get, then it will be difficult for women to get ahead in society.

In the case of the three statements sometimes cited by opponents of abortion, the patterns generally go in the opposite direction. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say each statement reflects their views “extremely” or “very” well, as are Protestants (especially White evangelical Protestants) and Catholics compared with the religiously unaffiliated. In addition, older Americans are more likely than young adults to say that human life begins at conception and that easy access to abortion encourages unsafe sex.

Gender differences on these questions, however, are muted. In fact, women are just as likely as men to say that human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights (39% and 38%, respectively).

Analyzing certain statements together allows for an examination of the extent to which individuals can simultaneously hold two views that may seem to some as in conflict. For instance, overall, one-in-three U.S. adults say that  both  the statement “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” and the statement “human life begins at conception, so the fetus is a person with rights” reflect their own views at least somewhat well. This includes 12% of adults who say both statements reflect their views “extremely” or “very” well. 

Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to say both statements reflect their own views at least somewhat well (36% vs. 30%), although Republicans are much more likely to say  only  the statement about the fetus being a person with rights reflects their views at least somewhat well (39% vs. 9%) and Democrats are much more likely to say  only  the statement about the decision to have an abortion belonging solely to the pregnant woman reflects their views at least somewhat well (55% vs. 19%).

Additionally, those who take the stance that abortion should be legal in all cases with no exceptions are overwhelmingly likely (76%) to say only the statement about the decision belonging solely to the pregnant woman reflects their views extremely, very or somewhat well, while a nearly identical share (73%) of those who say abortion should be  illegal  in all cases with no exceptions say only the statement about human life beginning at conception reflects their views at least somewhat well.

When asked to describe whether they had any other additional views or feelings about abortion, adults shared a range of strong or complex views about the topic. In many cases, Americans reiterated their strong support – or opposition to – abortion in the U.S. Others reflected on how difficult or nuanced the issue was, offering emotional responses or personal experiences to one of two open-ended questions asked on the survey. 

One open-ended question asked respondents if they wanted to share any other views or feelings about abortion overall. The other open-ended question asked respondents about their feelings or views regarding abortion restrictions. The responses to both questions were similar. 

Overall, about three-in-ten adults offered a response to either of the open-ended questions. There was little difference in the likelihood to respond by party, religion or gender, though people who say they have given a “lot” of thought to the issue were more likely to respond than people who have not. 

Of those who did offer additional comments, about a third of respondents said something in support of legal abortion. By far the most common sentiment expressed was that the decision to have an abortion should be solely a personal decision, or a decision made jointly with a woman and her health care provider, with some saying simply that it “should be between a woman and her doctor.” Others made a more general point, such as one woman who said, “A woman’s body and health should not be subject to legislation.” 

About one-in-five of the people who responded to the question expressed disapproval of abortion – the most common reason being a belief that a fetus is a person or that abortion is murder. As one woman said, “It is my belief that life begins at conception and as much as is humanly possible, we as a society need to support, protect and defend each one of those little lives.” Others in this group pointed to the fact that they felt abortion was too often used as a form of birth control. For example, one man said, “Abortions are too easy to obtain these days. It seems more women are using it as a way of birth control.” 

About a quarter of respondents who opted to answer one of the open-ended questions said that their views about abortion were complex; many described having mixed feelings about the issue or otherwise expressed sympathy for both sides of the issue. One woman said, “I am personally opposed to abortion in most cases, but I think it would be detrimental to society to make it illegal. I was alive before the pill and before legal abortions. Many women died.” And one man said, “While I might feel abortion may be wrong in some cases, it is never my place as a man to tell a woman what to do with her body.” 

The remaining responses were either not related to the topic or were difficult to interpret.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Christianity
• Evangelicalism
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy
• Protestantism
• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Politics
• Religion & Social Values

Public’s Positive Economic Ratings Slip; Inflation Still Widely Viewed as Major Problem

Americans have mixed views about how the news media cover biden’s, trump’s ages, an early look at black voters’ views on biden, trump and election 2024, support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 50, Issue 6
• Choosing death in unjust conditions: hope, autonomy and harm reduction
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9034-8566 Kayla Wiebe ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9926-7826 Amy Mullin
• Philosophy , University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science , Toronto , Ontario , Canada
• Correspondence to Kayla Wiebe, Philosophy, University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada; kayla.wiebe{at}mail.utoronto.ca

In this essay, we consider questions arising from cases in which people request medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in unjust social circumstances. We develop our argument by asking two questions. First, can decisions made in the context of unjust social circumstance be meaningfully autonomous? We understand ‘unjust social circumstances’ to be circumstances in which people do not have meaningful access to the range of options to which they are entitled and ‘autonomy’ as self-governance in the service of personally meaningful goals, values and commitments. People in these circumstances would choose otherwise, were conditions more just. We consider and reject arguments that the autonomy of people choosing death in the context of injustice is necessarily reduced, either by restricting their options for self-determination, through their internalisation of oppressive attitudes or by undermining their hope to the point that they despair.

Second, should MAiD be available to people in such circumstances, even when a sound argument can be made that the agents in question are autonomous? In response, we use a harm reduction approach, arguing that even though such decisions are tragic, MAiD should be available. Our argument engages with relational theories of autonomy as well as recent criticism raised against them and is intended to be general in application, although it emerges in response to the Canadian legal regimen around MAiD, with a focus on recent changes in Canada’s eligibility criteria to qualify for MAiD.

• Ethics- Medical
• Right to Die
• Legislation

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study. Not applicable.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108871

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

In this essay, we consider questions arising from cases in which people request medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in unjust social circumstances. We develop our argument by asking two questions. First, can decisions made in the context of unjust social circumstance be meaningfully autonomous? People in these circumstances would choose otherwise, were conditions more just. We consider and reject arguments that the autonomy of people choosing death in the context of injustice is necessarily reduced, either by more directly restricting their options for self-determination, through their internalisation of oppressive attitudes or by undermining their hope to the point that they despair, and that such decisions accordingly fall below the standard needed to be recognised as autonomous. Second, should MAiD be available to people in such circumstances, even when the agents in question are autonomous? In response, we use a harm reduction approach, arguing that though such decisions are tragic, MAiD should be available.

We understand autonomy as self-governance in the service of personally meaningful goals, values and commitments. Our understanding of autonomy is relational, where autonomy can be both enhanced and undermined by social context and relationships 1 2 and engages with recent criticism of some relational theories. 3 We understand ‘unjust social circumstances’ as circumstances in which people do not have meaningful access to a range of options to which they are entitled. 4–6 Our focus on these questions in the context of MAiD is prompted by recent legal changes in Canada which made people with chronic and non-terminal conditions eligible for it, but our argument has implications for any jurisdiction in which some form of MAiD can be legally requested or in which that legality is being explored. We exclude conditions which are solely psychiatric from consideration, another area of current controversy in Canada.

Motivating the problem

Changes to Canada’s legal regime governing MAiD were ushered in by Truchon V Canada in 2019 7 and later Bill C-7 in 2021. 8 This legislation removed the requirement legislated in Bill C-14 that a patient’s death be ‘reasonably foreseeable’ to be eligible for MAiD. 9 Although Bill C-7 marks an expansion in eligibility from Bill C-14, the criterion that one’s death be reasonably foreseeable was not included in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter. 10 Of particular concern are persons with disabilities who choose MAiD, the worry being that such persons might choose MAiD for social, rather than strictly medical reasons, because they cannot access alternative means of reducing their suffering, such as housing compatible with their condition or sufficient hours of paid care.

In 2022, an individual in Canada, who had been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), received MAiD. However, by their own description, their decision to choose MAiD was driven primarily by the fact that they were unable to access affordable housing compatible with MCS. 11 While it was true that they suffered from an illness, disease or disability that caused ‘enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable’ as specified under the eligibility criteria of Bill C-14, 9 the primary source of their suffering was an inability to find appropriate housing, not the condition itself. 11 Another person, also with MCS, writes: ‘I’ve applied for MAiD essentially because of abject poverty’. 12

A point of clarification regarding the target cases in this paper: we think it is reasonable to expect that the number of these kinds of cases will be few relative to the proportion of patients who can and will access MAiD due to Bill C-7. That is, they represent a kind of ‘worst case scenario,’ rather than representing the majority of cases that are now eligible. However, these types of cases are arguably the most salient ones—they dominate news reports, catch public attention and influence public opinion. They are also worthy of consideration in their own right, and highlight an important philosophical issue: what, if anything, does injustice and oppression do to the status of an agent’s choice, and what is the best path forward? In terms of scope, the topic of this paper is not the moral status of MAiD in general, or whether one’s death should be reasonably foreseeable to be eligible for MAiD, but rather: whether the fact that many people will now be making end of life choices in the context of injustice counts as a reason to restrict that option.

Many have the reasonable intuition that persons who are operating within a restricted set of options have been driven to choose MAiD, 13 effectively problematising the status of their choice. In what follows, we engage with several iterations of this kind of argument. First, we address three different arguments that stipulate that unjustly restricted options undermine an agent’s autonomy, and persons in such circumstances should not be allowed to access MAiD because their autonomy is in question. Finally, we consider the argument that even if persons in such circumstances are autonomous, they should not be allowed to access MAiD for reasons to do with injustice. Before we do so, several terms should be defined and explained.

We understand personal autonomy to be one’s ability to govern one’s conduct and choices in keeping with what matters to them. On this view, personal autonomy requires the ability to understand the options that are available and what their consequences are, the ability to appreciate what matters to oneself, not necessarily by articulating it, but by making choices that aim towards it, and powers of self-governance, such as the ability to focus and persist in a course of action. To be autonomous, one must also take what one cares about to provide reasons for action, have a basic form of self-trust and self-worth 14–16 as manifested in the fact that they pursue what matters to them.

Although this is rarely emphasised, acting autonomously also requires hope. 17 To hope, one must have goals that matter personally, as opposed to those one would merely concede as reasonable for others to pursue, one must be able to explore pathways to realise those goals and be motivated to take one of those pathways when the goal seems realisable. We term this ‘engaged hope’ to differentiate it from mere optimism, such as wishing for the best without taking any action oneself. 18 Engaged hope also differs from merely having a desire to act in a particular way as it is a sustained attitude involving a readiness to take action in circumstances in which it appears feasible to make progress towards one’s goals.

Autonomy-based arguments against MAiD in injustice

There are many arguments to support the claim that MAiD should not be accessible to persons who have chronic, but non-terminal conditions, when those persons are seeking MAiD because their options have been unjustly restricted. In this section, we consider three related but distinct arguments that centre around the impact of oppression on agents’ autonomy. We list them here and engage with each in depth below.

First, some theorists argue that unjustly restricted options necessarily undermine autonomy, the status of an agent’s internal capacities notwithstanding. On this kind of view, even if an agent has thoroughly developed autonomy capacities and attitudes—such as understanding, strong sense of what they care about, self-worth and self-trust—they are still less than fully autonomous in virtue of lacking access to the range of options they are entitled to as a matter of justice. Second, some theorists argue that persons who have unjustly restricted options are likely to have internalised the oppressive attitudes that they have been subjected to. Here, it is not just the brute fact of restricted options, it is the way oppression has undermined their internal autonomy capacities and attitudes. Finally, we consider a general argument about hopelessness and autonomy, one we think is implied in much of the media coverage of the kinds of cases with which this paper is concerned. As this argument might go, someone who has had their options restricted so unjustly is requesting MAiD from a place of hopelessness and despair, and they therefore, cannot be making an autonomous choice.

Restricted options necessarily undermine autonomy

The first type of argument against allowing MAiD for persons who are chronically but not terminally ill states that if oppression restricts one’s options, autonomy has necessarily been reduced, although it may not be entirely undermined. While each proponent of this view has a slightly different story to tell, they all make having full-fledged autonomy dependent on a socially ideal state of affairs, where the agent has meaningful access to a wide enough range of options. 19–23 For example, Mackenzie argues that self-determination is one of three dimensions of autonomy, and self-determination requires freedom from oppression and substantive social equality. 24 On this sort of view, any choice to have MAiD in unjust circumstances would not be substantially autonomous because the agent does not have substantive social equality. The prima facie consequence of this view is that if a person is not autonomous, then at most, respect for their decision is no longer warranted, and at the very least, the status of the person’s choice is called into question.

These types of views are criticised by Khader, who argues that feminist theories of relational autonomy that claim that autonomy is necessarily reduced by restricted opportunities for self-determination can be too easily taken to warrant reduced respect for the actions and choices of oppressed agents. 3 We agree with Khader that restricted opportunities will often be insufficient to reduce autonomy. Of course, oppression can sometimes reduce autonomy, for instance, by subjecting one to coercion, drastically reducing hope, substantially constricting what one can imagine as a possibility for action, or limiting one’s access to the information required to make an informed decision. When an agent’s options are restricted due to oppression, this should certainly be condemned. However, the fact that someone’s options have been restricted is insufficient to reduce autonomy, because oppressed persons can and often do retain capacities and self-regarding attitudes necessary for autonomy, such as the ability to understand, appreciate the consequences of their choice, the capacity to value, the ability to reflect on the values guiding their decision, as well as the attitudes of engaged hope, self-worth and self-trust.

We agree with Mackenzie that access to substantive equality is important but disagree that such conditions are or should be understood to be requirements for autonomy. One reason is that such views provide the conceptual framework to justify ‘promiscuous paternalism’. 3 This is true despite the fact that some individual proponents of these views hesitate to conclude that paternalistic intervention is the correct course of action, even though they maintain that autonomy has been compromised significantly.

Another problem with this view is that it would disqualify many ordinary choosers from the realm of autonomy. To this end, it is important that an approach to autonomy be practically applicable in bioethical contexts. It is not feasible to expect medical professionals to assess the extent to which the person in their care has had their options restricted because of oppression and neither is it directly relevant. Medical professionals are properly positioned to detect a reduction in the capacities and self-regarding attitudes that their patients need to make autonomous decisions. If they were to attempt to assess the impact of oppression on patients who maintain the relevant capacities and self-regarding attitudes, we think they are likely to overreach and behave paternalistically to people solely because they have experienced oppression. Mackenzie herself argues that, although she thinks that having one’s options for self-determination restricted due to oppression directly and necessarily reduces autonomy, in medical contexts patients’ decisions should not be overruled on this basis alone and the ‘most salient dimensions’ of autonomy should be competency and authenticity. 24

Decisions to request MAiD by people with chronic conditions will certainly be impacted by the opportunities available to them. In an ableist society which values and is clearly built for people who are physically and mentally healthy, independent and able-bodied, and who live generally pain-free, people with disabilities and those living in chronic pain and suffering are not sufficiently valued. Further, they often experience significant barriers in achieving effective access to long term care—from general support to safe pain management—that would improve the quality of their lives. We agree that these constitute serious injustices. However, to claim that access to ideal social conditions is a requirement for autonomy is to mistake conditions for substantive justice for the conditions required for autonomy. 25 Further argument is needed to relevantly connect injustice (in the form of restricted options) to one’s actual autonomy capacities. We consider two such arguments below.

Oppression undermines internal autonomy capacities

While we think it is theoretically unsound to make autonomy contingent on access to ideal social conditions, we recognise that oppressive circumstances can be severe enough that agents despair, and do not take any action in pursuit of their goals. In another piece, arguing that certain self-reflective attitudes like self-worth and self-trust are required for autonomy, Mackenzie presents an example of one such kind of case. Mrs. H has cancer, has had part of a leg amputated, and her husband has left her due to her disability and regards her as an embarrassment. 26 Mrs. H, as described by Mackenzie, has lost all sense of self-worth, does not trust herself, and does not want any of the treatment options her medical team proposes. She wants to die. We agree with Mackenzie’s suggestion that Mrs. H as so described is not fully autonomous. However, the judgement that she is not autonomous is grounded in the fact that in this particular case, we have an agent who lacks self-trust, has no self-worth and has evidently lost engaged hope. She is not declared non-autonomous simply because her values have been shaped by sexist norms of traditional femininity, and she has arguably existed with a restricted set of options for some time.

We would, therefore, recommend interventions aimed to increase her sense of hope, such as putting her in contact with people successfully coping with a diagnosis like her own rather than interventions aimed at transforming her values. While Mrs. H’s case is, we think, an excellent example of how oppressive socialisation can contribute to undermining capacities needed for autonomy, particularly insofar as her self-worth is significantly damaged by the combination of her illness and her husband’s attitudes and actions, her case is relevantly unlike patients who are the target of this paper: those who are choosing MAiD in part due to unjust social conditions. Whereas Mrs. H’s refusal of care comes from a radically undermined capacity for self-trust, low self-worth and lack of engaged hope due to neglectful close interpersonal relationships, these persons are choosing MAiD due to a lack of alternatives. In these cases, there is no evidence to suggest that they do not trust themselves, or that they despair completely. Unlike Mrs. H, they demonstrate a considerable level of engaged hope: they are taking an active role in responding to their situation and are motivated to realise a goal. The fact that this goal is arguably grim and reflects a severely unjust social landscape does not detract from the legitimacy of their agency. It is an indictment of the options available, not of the status of their autonomy, given the options they have to work with.

To explore this argument further, we turn to Ho’s argument that the presence of oppressive circumstances renders decision-making in the context of oppression non-autonomous, because of the impact of oppressive norms. 27 28 Like Mackenzie, who focuses on the impact of sexist norms on Mrs. H’s autonomy, Ho’s argument is that unjust social circumstances—in this case, ableism—undermine autonomy in end-of-life choices. However, unlike Mackenzie, the cases Ho considers are arguably analogous to those that come under consideration in light of the changes to MAiD brought on by Bill C-7.

Ho analyses several examples of people who chose to die via passive euthanasia, discussing Larry McAfee (1985), Kenneth Berghsted (1969), Dan Crews (2010) and Elizabeth Bouvia (1983–1986). McAfee and Berghsted became quadriplegic after accidents (1985 and 1969, respectively), and requested that they be removed from a respirator and allowed to die. Crews, who was disabled at the age of three, asked to be allowed to die in his early twenties. Bouvia had cerebral palsy, and in her mid-20s (1983), made a request to a hospital in Irvine, California, that she be allowed to die by starving to death. 27 We grant that a relevant dissimilarity between these cases and the ones that are the target of this paper is that the former are instances of passive euthanasia, while the latter involve active euthanasia. However, the topic of this analysis is not to debate the ethicality of euthanasia per se, and we do not argue that passive and active forms are equivalent. Instead our focus is on making a choice to die (passively or actively) in the context of injustice, due to a lack of alternatives; in both types of cases, we have just this.

There are several common threads running through the cases analysed by Ho. First, each of the people in these cases were eventually granted the legal right to die. The second similarity, as Ho points out, is that no one was in a state of physical deterioration because of their disability. In each case, what prompted the request to die was arguably non-medical: the inability to afford or access care that sustained the quality of life they had before. And here, we have a case very similar to the 2022 MAiD cases we started with: the request for death is due to one’s social circumstances—importantly, a lack of options—rather than ‘strictly’ medical, such as a change in one’s health state, or a deterioration in one’s executive functioning. A third commonality is that each of the people involved went to considerable lengths to advocate for a solution that they wanted to be able to access. Bouvia’s persistence is particularly notable: she petitioned the hospital in Irvine, California, to be allowed to die. She was admitted but treated against her will, she petitioned the hospital’s decision to a lower court judge, appealed the judge’s decision, and was placed in another care facility where she was force fed again. Her physicians stated that she was ‘clearly intending suicide,’ and that she could live an estimated 15–20 years with current treatment. She sued the hospital and went before the Superior Court of Los Angeles, only to be turned down again. She appealed again, and finally in 1986, the California Court of Appeal granted her the right to decide for herself to refuse treatment. 29

The ability of the people discussed by Ho to advocate for themselves and navigate the courts and medical bureaucracies is arguably evidence of engaged hope, self-worth and a stronger commitment to pursue what they want than many ‘ordinary’ choosers do, choosers that we have no problem evaluating as autonomous. There is no evidence of diminished decision-making capacity or autonomy in these cases.

What about the possibility that people with disabilities who are choosing death because of limited options may be doing so due to internalised ableism? That is, perhaps these cases do resemble cases like that of Mrs. H. Perhaps Crews, McAfee, Bergstedt, Bouvia, and those currently electing for MAiD in Canada, are in part doing so because they have internalised an incorrect belief that life with a disability is less worthy than life without one. First, operating on the default assumption that people with disabilities have internalised such a downgraded sense of self-worth such that their testimony regarding their own experience is doubted constitutes another kind of ableism in the form of epistemic injustice. Their testimony is discounted because of their group membership—they are identified as people with disabilities and the fact that they have likely encountered ableism is thought to make them unreliable when it comes to giving the reasons for their decisions. When people living with disabilities state that their quality of life is intolerable to them due to a lack of access to care they ought to have, the ethically sound response is to criticise the social conditions that have downgraded their quality of life, not question their self-reflexive attitudes or how authentic or legitimate their evaluation of their quality of life is. Second, it is just not clear without question begging that it is accurate that persons who grow up with disabilities have, in fact, internalised ableism to such a degree that their autonomy should be questioned or assessed as deficient.

What should we think about the fact, then, that in each case outlined above, and with the cases emerging in the wake of Bill C-7, decisions towards death are being prompted not by development of a clinical condition, but by problems in access to needed healthcare, and more fulsome social and financial support for dependency needs? Is it that they have internalised an ‘ableist ideology’, whereby certain impairments due to disability are ‘more legitimate than other reasons for one to desire death’ as Ho has interpreted these types of decisions? 27 This is an understandable conclusion to draw—after all, each of these agents is making decisions in an ableist environment, the lack of long-term, robust and holistic care for disabled people being just further evidence of this.

We propose a different understanding of these kinds of choices. Each of these persons had a disability and decided to pursue assisted death due to a social reason. Does this mean they think their own lives are not worth living because of their disability, while more abled lives are? We answer no. It is reasonable to think that each of these agents viewed their suffering as insurmountable, and unlikely to change. Rather than betraying an ‘ableist bias,’ their decisions can be more charitably and respectfully interpreted as an accurate assessment of their situation. It is one thing to identify an ableist bias in a person or a policy where there is no lived experience with a disability, and quite another to attribute ableism to a person who has intimate experience living with their disability, and to on this basis question the legitimacy of their decisions regarding their own care. Trusting a person with a disability’s subjective reports of their own quality of life is not mutually exclusive with also arguing in support of and advocating for a world where the structural barriers that undermine their quality of life do not exist.

Third, even if investigating the authenticity of their evaluation of their quality of life to detect whether an agent had internalised nefarious bias were an appropriate response, it would be practically impossible to assess this reliably. It is difficult enough for individuals to accurately assess the degree to which internalised oppression might operate in their motivational landscape, and medical teams are not well-positioned to detect the presence of internalised oppression within the values sets of those requesting MAiD. We agree with Khader that this seems like a recipe for unwarranted paternalistic interference. 3 While neither Mackenzie nor Ho argue that decisions made by oppressed people should be disregarded for that reason alone, their arguments provide support to those who would argue for that conclusion.

If there are reasonable doubts regarding the autonomy of persons seeking MAiD, assessors should, as with all patients requesting an end to their lives, look for signs of coercion, confusion, a lack of self-trust so severe that it undermines self-governance in the service of what they care about, or a state of despair that entirely erodes hope, such that they do not pursue a course of action at all. Given that MAiD is being requested, the latter seems unlikely.

Oppression leads to hopelessness, which undermines autonomy

Finally, what about the argument that persons choosing within restricted options are hopeless? Unjustly restricted options do not necessarily undermine hope to the point of despair, but of course, we certainly recognise the possibility that such oppressive circumstances could lead some to despair. The case of Mrs. H as articulated by Mackenzie is one such example. However, persons requesting MAiD are arguably acting with engaged hope in seeking what they consider to be the best option of the options available to them.

To act with engaged hope one must have goals and take an active role in responding to one’s situation. There are several things such hope does not require. It does not require the person to act on their own or to ignore the views of others. Most projects, including seeking medical aid in dying, involve support from others and this is no threat to autonomy so long as those others do not withhold crucial information or act coercively. What matters is that the autonomous person’s goals and what they hope for are uncoerced and reflect a basic sense of self-trust. For example, someone who requests MAiD in part to spare their family the experience of their suffering or to ensure they can leave behind resources to support social causes they care about is not lacking autonomy if they do not feel pressured to do so, and if they do not feel undeserving of having what they care about taken seriously.

Finally, and crucially for the purposes of our paper, having engaged hope does not require the person to think they can achieve an ideal outcome in their course of action. Acting with engaged hope only requires that some outcomes are better, and others worse, according to the person’s own lights. For instance, Sathya Darya Kovac would have preferred to continue to live for several more years with her ALS if she were provided with more hours of paid home care to enable her to live at home with a companion animal. However, she chose MAiD as an alternative to either living in a shared residence with round the clock care or living in her own home with insufficient home care. 30 Her choice was tragically shaped by social conditions, but there is no evidence that a lack of hope undermined her autonomy and her determined pursuit of access to MAiD is instead evidence that she had a goal that mattered deeply to her and persisted in pursuing it.

Each individual considered in this paper lacked access, not only to better options but also options that they should have had as a matter of justice. Individuals in unjust circumstances can have the capacities and attitudes they need for autonomy undermined by leading them to lose self-worth and hope, or by denying them access to information about their options. However, we think that any assessment of their autonomy should focus on whether there has been a loss of those capacities and attitudes, and not simply on evidence that their options have been restricted due to oppression, or that they live in a society that devalues them and so they might have internalised oppressive attitudes. The presumption that autonomy is necessarily undermined by oppression is problematic and produces a conception of autonomy that is impossible to assess in medical contexts. Moreover, the persons who are the subject of news and legal proceedings, those battling to be able to access an option they desire, are rarely the persons whose autonomy has been compromised in the first place.

Argument from injustice

A fourth iteration of the argument against providing MAiD in unjust circumstances does not rely on the state of one’s autonomy but asserts that unjust circumstances are causing people with such conditions to choose MAiD when they would not otherwise do so. So, the argument goes, MAiD should not be available until social circumstances have significantly improved to ensure that the choice to receive MAiD is not in any way caused by circumstances that are, in theory, contingent. We agree with one claim involved in this argument: some people requesting MAiD would choose to continue living if circumstances were just and fair; indeed, they have explicitly stated as much. 11 31 32

However, even a charitable interpretation of the remainder of the argument relies on empirically dubious claims. Specifically, we suspect that this argument involves the unproven empirical causal claim that making it easier for such people to end their lives with medical assistance will take pressure off legislators and decision-makers who would otherwise seek to improve social conditions and access to care for health conditions. This argument also seems to rest on the inverse empirical claim that withholding an option (MAiD) in these contexts will compel legislators and decision-makers to bolster social and community support, given how dire circumstances are. There is no empirical evidence to support the causal arguments in either direction, and without good reasons to think the situation will improve, withholding treatment options amounts to further restricting (at times, removing entirely) the limited range of choices that people in these circumstances have.

This type of argument appears to us to license paternalistically over-riding the decisions of competent people whose suffering has led them to choose to die with medical assistance in order to make instrumental use of their suffering. While this is purportedly to help other people living with similar chronic conditions who do not, or are not currently, choosing MAiD, it is insensitive to the occurrent and very real suffering of people requesting MAiD, and is therefore unsupportable, no matter how noble the cause. Not allowing people to access MAiD because their request is driven by unjust social circumstances, when those circumstances show no short-term chance of improving, succeeds only in causing further harm. To force people who are already in unjust social circumstances to have to wait until those social circumstances improve, or for the possibility of public charity that sometimes but unreliably occurs when particularly distressing cases become public, is unacceptable.

Our response: argument from harm reduction

We characterise ours as an argument from harm reduction. Harm reduction has typically been used as a type of policy recommendation in public health (often surrounding sex work and drug use). However, we agree with Dea and Weinstock that the insights from harm reduction can be applied in a much wider swath of seemingly intractable debates. 33 34 A harm reduction approach requires a shift to an empirical 33 perspective on difficult debates, and, we would argue, it requires an explicit recognition of the non-ideal circumstances in which these difficult choices are made. A harm reduction approach acknowledges that the recommended solution is necessarily an imperfect one: a ‘lesser evil’ between two or more less than ideal options. In the cases we have been considering in this paper—indeed all cases implicated by a legal shift like that found in Canada’s Bill C-7 in the context of a society that provides less than adequate or just support for its citizens—we ask: what is the least harmful way forward, given the sociopolitical reality as it stands?

While harm is a notoriously contentious concept, in the context of this debate, we define the relevant type of harm as the subjective experience of ‘having enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering’ due to an incurable illness, disease or disability. This conceptualisation of harm is based on the fact that both Canadian legislation, 9 and central philosophical arguments, 35 pick out one’s subjective well-being or lack thereof (severe suffering) in relation to an illness, disease, or disability, as one of the central justifications for MAiD (or euthanasia), and we have defined it using the language in that legislation.

In the case of the availability of MAiD in Canada to people who not only might but have explicitly said they would choose differently if they had access to the options they preferred, we argue that the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available. Access to healthcare across nearly all dimensions continues to deteriorate in the wake of the pandemic even outside of long-term and palliative care, from basic care, 36 to surgical backlogs, 37 to a general consensus that the system is in a state of collapse. 38 In this context, refusing options to people who autonomously pursue MAiD amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world. This is a world that currently does not exist and is unlikely to emerge in the near future. Even if it did, it is unfortunately even more unlikely that the people whose current suffering has led them to request MAiD will realise its benefits.

We agree that people living with disabilities need and absolutely deserve better access to healthcare, as well as a society in which there are more opportunities to contribute to their communities and realise personal goals. The fact that better supports are not provided in cases like these is abhorrent and the lack of options constitutes a deep injustice.

However, we disagree with any claim that the unjust lack of choices available to people is alone sufficient to undermine their autonomy. Those who launch legal proceedings or request and receive MAiD are unlikely examples of people whose reduced opportunities have led them to lose all hope and motivation for pursuing personally meaningful courses of action. Moreover, neither a reduction of opportunities in itself, nor the existence of oppressive ableist norms, is sufficient to directly undermine autonomy. We further argue against the claim that MAiD should not be available to people in these circumstances even if their autonomy is stable. Restricting an autonomous choice to pursue MAiD due to the injustice of current non-ideal circumstances causes more harm than allowing the choice to pursue MAiD, even though that choice is deeply tragic.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

• Stoljar N ,
• Mackenzie C
• Veltman A ,
• Buchanan AE
• Venkatapuram S
• ↵ Truchon V Canada [ Superior Court of Quebec ]. 2019 . Available : https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2019/2019qccs3792/2019qccs3792.html
• ↵ Carter V. Canada [ Supreme Court of Canada ]. 2015 . Available : https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc5/2015scc5.html
• Anderson J ,
• Oshana M , Department of Philosophy, Florida State University
• Mulligan C ,
• Weinstock D
• Canadian Medical Association

X @KaylaJWiebe

Contributors We jointly worked on the paper from the inception of the idea, through development, revision, and to completion. We both contributed equally to and are jointly responsible for the content in this paper.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

• Response Autonomy is not a sufficient basis for analysing the choice for medical assistance in dying in unjust conditions: in favour of a dignity-based approach Maria DiDanieli Journal of Medical Ethics 2023; 50 421-422 Published Online First: 06 Jul 2023. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109284
• Response Medically assisted dying in Canada and unjust social conditions: a response to Wiebe and Mullin Timothy Christie Madeline Li Journal of Medical Ethics 2023; 50 423-424 Published Online First: 14 Jul 2023. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109327

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Impact of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) on family caregivers Rachel Goldberg et al., BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 2019
• Making a case for the inclusion of refractory and severe mental illness as a sole criterion for Canadians requesting medical assistance in dying (MAiD): a review Anees Bahji et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• Organ donation after medical assistance in dying or cessation of life-sustaining treatment requested by conscious patients: the Canadian context Julie Allard et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017
• Canadian French and English newspapers’ portrayals of physicians’ role and medical assistance in dying (MAiD) from 1972 to 2016: a qualitative textual analysis Ellen T Crumley et al., BMJ Open, 2019
• Exploring key stakeholders’ attitudes and opinions on medical assistance in dying and palliative care in Canada: a qualitative study protocol Gilla K Shapiro et al., BMJ Open, 2021
• Medical Assistance in Dying at a paediatric hospital Carey DeMichelis et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2018
• Medical assistance in dying in hospice: A qualitative study James Mellett et al., BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 2022
• Canadian neurosurgeons’ views on medical assistance in dying (MAID): a cross-sectional survey of Canadian Neurosurgical Society (CNSS) members Alwalaa Althagafi et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2019
• Emotional impact on healthcare providers involved in medical assistance in dying (MAiD): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis Saumil Yogendra Dholakia et al., BMJ Open, 2022
• Medically assisted dying in Canada and unjust social conditions: a response to Wiebe and Mullin Timothy Christie et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2023

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

What These Stories About Samuel Alito’s “Provocative” Flags Are Really About

No, john roberts is not going to do anything about this one either..

It’s easy to be furious at Samuel Alito, who has recently racked up yet another petty personal grievance display over, of all things, flags. Last week saw the earthquake report that his wife flew a flag upside down—signaling either that the country is in danger or that the election was stolen—in the days after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. This week,   the New York Times further reports that Alito was flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his New Jersey beach house this past summer. That flag is not merely another Jan. 6 signifier but is also rooted in John Locke’s “appeal to heaven,” meaning “a responsibility to rebel, even use violence, to overthrow unjust rule.”

In some ways, this is another very ridiculous, very 2024 story about the lengths to which ostensible adults will go toward owning the libs, and one justice’s fantastically bad judgment and cluelessness about the appearance of impropriety. But this is not even about Samuel Alito. Neither, actually, was the bombshell report about his alleged leak of the outcome of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014 to wealthy religious Supreme Court lobbyists about Samuel Alito. To expend energy railing against this one petty, petty little man is to inveigh against the symptom as opposed to the problem.

It is just as easy to be enraged at Clarence Thomas and his myriad and corrosive ethics violations. His wife has texted with Mark Meadows over what she believed to be a stolen 2020 election, tried to encourage state legislators to support a slate of dummy electors, attended part of the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, and testified before the Jan. 6 committee that she still believed that that election had been stolen. And Thomas has declined to recuse himself from the three Jan. 6 cases heard at the high court this year. But again, this is not about Ginni or Clarence Thomas. Expending energy hopelessly trying to shame Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito is an act of incalculable futility.

It is not even, I fear, about Chief Justice John Roberts, who might have, in a different time and under different circumstances, been the type of history-minded leader who would have dealt with this shameless and flagrant squandering of the court’s reputation as a serious body. After all, Roberts once told Jeffrey Rosen in the Atlantic, “The Court is also ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.” But that chief justice left the chat at least a decade ago. In failing to act, over and over, he has been a powerful actor.

In Legitimacy Roberts’ stead we have been left with yet another defensive , thin-skinned thunderer about judicial independence and a longtime coddler of insurrectionists and grifters. Which is why calling on Roberts to take a page from Chief Justice Earl Warren’s playbook and use his moral authority to do something about Alito and Thomas—as Warren once did about Abe Fortas—is almost as futile as calling for him to put real teeth into an ethics code or conduct a meaningful investigation of the Dobbs leak. Roberts, respectfully, has long ago made the decision that he is simply one coequal vote among nine. He neither wants nor possesses the authority to rein in the MAGA justices. He may vote as though he cares about court legitimacy, but he chief justices like the harassed mother of a kid throwing a tantrum at Safeway—all shrugs and eye rolls. We can and should demand that Roberts account for what he knew and when he knew it, but Roberts will not solve the problem he has allowed to fester and grow.

So if the real problem here is not Sam Alito, or Clarence Thomas, or John Roberts, why have we wasted years of ink and umbrage and energy trying to change their behavior? Alito and Thomas will not be recusing themselves from either Fisher or the Trump immunity case. The chief justice will not be urging them to do so. No lawyer arguing in front of the court will, as Sherrilyn Ifill has been urging , demand a recusal or an investigation of justices with blatant conflicts of interest hearing these Jan. 6 cases because, as Noah Bookbinder of CREW recently told us on the Amicus podcast, to ask the very people you want to cast votes for you to find themselves conflicted is rank insanity. “The system of leaving it up to litigants to challenge justices as potentially conflicted doesn’t make any sense,” Bookbinder said. “Of course that’s not going to work. And leaving justices to make that determination doesn’t make any sense. You need to have some kind of outside body who can evaluate those kinds of questions.”

Who, who, who might that outside body be? Tapping my chin—you tap yours.

Bookbinder’s answer points beautifully to the real problem: We have a judicial enterprise that rules over us with absolutely no one ruling over it. Nobody should be all that surprised that Sen. Dick Durbin has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will not launch a probe into Alito’s recent conduct. The Senate has also been trying to unearth the financing for Thomas’ quarter-million-dollar, salt-of-the-earth RV, amid other ethics violations, and Leonard Leo has declined to comply with subpoenas related to it. Yes, the Senate should be acting to resolve this problem, but that seems to have largely stalled at “Ask them to recuse.”

So, just to review, this isn’t really a Sam Alito problem, or a Clarence Thomas problem, or a John Roberts problem—but it also isn’t even a Senate-Dems-who-can’t-muster-the-energy-to-close-the-deal problem.

No, I have come to conclude that this is an us problem. Because rather than hurling ourselves headlong into the “Alito Must Recuse” brick wall of “yeah, no,” we need to dedicate the upcoming election cycle, and the attendant election news cycle, to a discussion of the courts. Not just Alito or Thomas, who happen to go to work every day at the court, and not just Dobbs and gun control, which happen to have come out of the very same court, but the connection between those two tales: what it means to have a Supreme Court that is functionally immune from political pressure, from internal norms of behavior, from judicial ethics and disclosure constraints, and from congressional oversight, and why that is deeply dangerous. More so, why justices who were placed on the court to behave as well-compensated partisan politicians would do so in public as well as on paper. Until we do that, Alito will continue to fly around the world, giving speeches about his triumph in Dobbs and Thomas will keep taking gifts and failing to disclose them. That won’t be the end of the Supreme Court story; it will be just the start of it.

My friend Jennifer Rubin unspooled a call for Democrats to run in November on the promise of abortion rights and court and filibuster reform. That too will be a start. But Donald Trump is already training us to accept the argument that presidents need to be able to order the assassination of their rivals, and Alito is training us to tolerate the notion that if we don’t grant presidents immunity for such acts, they won’t agree to peacefully leave office. In the span of a week, Alito has also trained us to accept that justices can fly whatever inciting and ideological symbols they like, even if the guys who work in the SCOTUS mailroom can’t, because justices are also the recipients of blanket immunity. The problem with these arguments about offering immunity to bad actors is that you can metabolize the helplessness almost as rapidly as you metabolize the idea of immunity itself. It’s not merely the idea that law is for suckers that we have normalized in this precarious moment—it’s the tragic collective conclusion that there is nothing to be done about the fact that the light is really flashing red right now.

An imperial court is the problem, not Martha-Ann Alito’s childish tantrums and not whatever her husband will tell Fox News tomorrow about how the haters made him fly a Christian nationalist flag as the court took on the mifepristone case. Please don’t let the rapid riptides of the news cycle or the sense that God wants us all to live under the fist of an imperial court forever and ever, amen, distract from the fact that term limits, court expansion, an inspector general, and filibuster reform, all of this is possible, and none of it is happening in the wake of the Alito flag revelations, just as none of it was happening when Ginni Thomas showed up at an insurrection rally. The court is hearing cases on the docket while some justices are living life off the docket that prove one thing only: that institutional immunity is not so much taken as silently and invisibly conferred. If we have learned anything at all in the recent past, it’s that it’s also contagious.

Go Ahead and Make Fun of Your Friends

It’s good for both of you.

P rofessional comedy, which most of us consume in modest doses, is not how humor infuses our day-to-day lives. Nor are proper jokes, with feed lines and punch lines, the primary vehicle for laughter. Instead, top billing goes to the wisecracks we share with family and friends—those spontaneously funny, though often mocking, remarks that leaven our daily chatter. When my English-professor wife is forced to spend her morning drafting an email to colleagues instead of working on an essay for a journal, I console her, dryly, that she can always submit her email to the Journal of Administrative Memos. Our queer teen jokes with us about the “BLT” community—an affectionate riff on the ever-growing acronym. And when I’m forced to admit my day job as a philosopher who writes about knowing how to live, I try to puncture the pretension with a postscript: “It’s important to work on the things you’re not good at.” Like I said: not proper jokes, but they were funny at the time.

David Shoemaker’s new book, Wisecracks , is not about comedians, or jokes. Instead, he aims to illuminate the ethics of “banter, teasing, mockery, prankery, taking the piss, leg-pulling, joshing, and quippery.” Shoemaker’s claim is bold: that morally questionable humor is not just ethically okay but positively good.

A few high-profile cases have shown the extreme side of such humor, among them Dave Chappelle on trans people and Jimmy Carr on Roma and the Holocaust. But Shoemaker turns attention away from public controversy to ordinary life, lowering the rhetorical temperature. Many of us make fun of family and friends, their flaws and foibles, in ways that involve mockery or stereotyping—wisecracks we wouldn’t venture in public. Context matters, which makes it hard to offer examples, because the context that makes a wisecrack fine between close friends is very different from the context of an article in The Atlantic . I trust that, like me, you know firsthand the kinds of conversations Shoemaker has in mind. In giving them their due, he sheds new light on the ethics of these everyday interactions.

Shoemaker spends a chapter each on deception, mockery, and stereotyping, arguing that there are moral reasons against all three but that those reasons are often outweighed by the arguments in favor.

“Probably the most familiar type [of put-on] involves getting someone who cares about you to believe that you’ve failed at something when you’ve actually succeeded,” Shoemaker writes—as when I return glumly from my third driving test only to reveal, to laughing relief, that I’ve finally passed. According to Shoemaker, “Pranks and put-ons … require real deception, and that deception is of an immoral sort”—a characterization that strikes me as being a little strong. Whatever trickery is involved when I tell you that the word gullible has been taken out of the dictionary, I doubt it warrants the “blaming anger” Shoemaker explores. Nor is it obvious that friendly mockery causes “embarrassment or humiliation”—reactions it may instead defuse. But as it gets more edgy, wisecracking does mean moral risk, leaving open the potential that people may be genuinely deceived, or hurt, or disrespected.

We need good reason to take such risks, because it’s not generally permissible to expose someone to lies or harm merely for one’s own pleasure. Struggling to see much upside for the victims of pranks in being pranked, Shoemaker comes down pretty hard: “Interpersonal pranks are the lowest form of humor not because they require deception (leg-pulling does that too), but because they often aim to cause intrinsically harmful psychological states.” One of his more extreme examples is the bucket of pig’s blood dumped on the head of the eponymous antihero in Stephen King’s Carrie .

But many wisecracks fare better—including those that mock or stereotype. As Shoemaker contends, wisecracking can at times be a source of profound solidarity. When friends make fun of us for what would otherwise be embarrassing mistakes, failures, or foibles, they destigmatize them. When we mock a stereotype that others use for harm, we forge a connection that turns prejudice into subversive pleasure. Shoemaker’s most challenging prescription is a plea for us to joke with close friends about their disabilities, even if the disabilities are not ones we share. To refuse to do so is not just to signal that the disability is too harmful or too shameful for laughter, but to exclude someone from the community of humor: “It’s to discriminate against them in a crucial arena of interpersonal life solely in virtue of some arbitrary impairment or deviation from a physical or psychological ‘norm’ … It’s to deprive them of opportunities for engagement and solidarity and bonding that remain open to others. And that’s immoral.”

This doesn’t mean it’s not a delicate enterprise, or that we can’t go wrong—but there’s a moral argument for mockery, in context. To return to professional comedy, which we initially set aside: I think of Jimmy Carr, performing at a cancer-hospice gig with other comics, noting with discomfort that his peers had been afraid to joke about death. Hastening to the mic for the last spot of the evening, Carr opened with “C’mon, we haven’t got much time … well, I have” and followed up by asking “Is anyone here from last year?” I believe him when he says that the tension in the room dissolved, for a moment, in laughter. The moral risk paid off.

H umor offers more than just solidarity. It helps us cope with “the vicissitudes, difficulties, and absurdities of life” by changing our emotional relationship with them, Shoemaker writes. This is perhaps its deepest value and the one that I most cherish. It’s also the most mysterious.

Shoemaker connects the consoling power of humor with a conception of absurdity proposed by the philosopher Thomas Nagel. Immersed in life, we believe that our work, our interests, our politics, and the people we care about really matter. But, according to Nagel, when we step back and reflect from a cosmic perspective, we find our knowledge of their value fragile or unfounded. We cannot prove they matter at all; life seems absurd. “Nagel thinks this absurdity isn’t some great tragedy,” Shoemaker writes, seemingly deadpan, “to be addressed only by suicide or Buddhism.” Instead, the recognition that (maybe) nothing matters comes as comic relief: “From the point of view of the universe, none of our stakes could be lower, which is what makes humans at the same time so vicious and yet so hilarious.”

Read: The dark art of comedy in Ukraine

There’s something in this thought, but it feels like a rim shot to me. The joke does not quite land. What humor helps us confront, I think, is not the insignificance of our existence but the problem of human suffering. Shoemaker quotes Mark Twain: “The secret source of humor itself is not joy but sorrow. There is no humor in heaven.” He goes on to describe how first responders use humor to cope with trauma: “They distract and detach.” To join them, he writes, “we may need to take off our ‘emotional empathy lenses,’ and put on our ‘psychopath lenses’”—laughing at pain with “what Henri Bergson called ‘the momentary anaesthesia of the heart.’”

Such disengagement may be functional at times, but I don’t think it’s the only way that humor helps us cope with hardship. It doesn’t fit all of Shoemaker’s own examples. At one point, he writes about comedy revues performed by and for rape survivors: “As one person in the audience described the show, ‘I found it 100 per cent more funny than being raped.’” The point is surely not diversion or emotional numbing. It’s solidarity—and maybe something more.

When I think about the value of dark humor, I don’t think of distraction or detachment, or the possibility that nothing really matters, but of the alchemy by which the worst things we go through can be transmuted into laughter and therefore, momentarily, overcome. How can we take pleasure in what is terrible without cruelty or illusion, without pretending that it wasn’t so bad after all or that everything works out for the best? Intellectually, this puzzle may be insoluble. Emotionally, we seem to solve it, sometimes, when we joke about the unacceptable, turning the lead of suffering into the gold, or the fool’s gold, of humor.

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.