Skip to main content

The Ethical Problem on Earth and on Dunatopia. Ethics and Religion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Understanding the Course of Social Reality

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

  • 145 Accesses

Abstract

Confusion over the appropriate method of the social sciences has aggravated the social dimension of ethical questions, which have become confused, controversial, and, indeed, a true value-ideological puzzle. The chapter presents an overview of the current confusion on ethics, its main causes and its implications. It is noted that use of the observation-verification method puts ethics outside science, for such a method is unable to provide a scientific explanation of values. The result of this exclusion is the so-called doctrine of ethical relativism, which assigns a free choice with regard to values, a position only contradicted by the no less antiscientific claim that ethics is an object of faith. One result is that ethics becomes one of the exacerbating causes of conflicts among people. Making use of our notions of functional and ontological imperatives, this chapter criticizes some of the main sociological treatments of ethics, most notably those associated with the notion of natural rights and utilitarianism, but also some aspects of later Christian teachings and capitalistic ideas as well. A reinterpretation of the so-called secularization movement is offered. We unmask the idea that, in ethics, everyone has reason for his choices from his own point of view, and we demonstrate the erroneousness of any explicit renunciation of the possibility of providing scientific explanations of ethical problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Kantian categorical imperative, based as it is on pure rationality, provides one of the clearest demonstrations of this statement through the well known inconsistency and weakness of Kant’s examples. The personal and ‘good will’ ethics that he emphasizes is something much less stringent and less important than the ethical prescriptions representing functional imperatives; at any rate, the former ethics teaches us very little about the organization of social systems. Nagel’s analysis of the tension between personal and impersonal motivations clearly shows the weakness of the Kantian treatment of ethics.

    The relevance of the two principles of justice of J. Rawls depends, on an accurate inspection, upon the fact that they provide an approximation of some functional imperatives of modern societies. The sophisticated treatment by Nozick on the minimum state and such like is, for its part, deprived of foundations because it contradicts basic functional imperatives. For a criticism of this point, see Fusari (2014), pp. 226–227, and Ekstedt and Fusari (2010).

    The weakness of utilitarian ethics with its ‘impartial observer’ (who maximizes the sum of individual utilities)—an observer endowed with the strange ability to ‘weigh’ the most intimate and exclusive components of men: the utility of personal pleasure—is well known and evident.

    The consequent triumph of the notion of the subjective and relative character of values as proclaimed by Weber has consigned the monopoly of the objectivity of values to dogmatic ethics.

  2. 2.

    Think, for instance, of the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount as directed at the transformation of man so as to make him free from the need to be governed by the menace of force.

  3. 3.

    See Pasinetti (2012).

References

  • Fusari, A, (2014). Methodological misconceptions in the social sciences. Rethinking social thought and social processes. Springer: Dordretch Heidelberg, New York, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstedt, H., & Fusari, A. (2010). Economic theory and social science. Problems and revisions. London/New York: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L. L. (2012). The social doctrine of the Church and economic theory. Milan: Vita e Pensiero

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1982). The critique of pure reason. The critique of practical reason. The critique of judgement. Chicago/ London/ Toronto/ Geneva: William Benton Publisher/ Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1998). I paradossi dell’uguaglianza. Una proposta non utopica di giustizia sociale. Milan: EST Il Saggiatore, and Equality and partality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Milan: Feltrinelli and Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press, Harward University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (2000). Anarchy, state and utopia. Milan: Il Saggiatore

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1974). The method of historical and social sciences. Turin: Einaudi

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Fusari .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fusari, A. (2016). The Ethical Problem on Earth and on Dunatopia. Ethics and Religion. In: Understanding the Course of Social Reality. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43071-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43071-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43070-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43071-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics