Unit One: Introduction: Ethics

what is ethics?

The word ethics has its root in the Greek word ethos, meaning “custom” or “habit.” The
Latin word mores, from which we get the word morality, is basically synonymous with
the word ethos. In their common usage, the word ethics and morality appear to reflect
their etymology. Ordinarily, they refer to the social or cultural standards and principles
by which we customarily judge things as “right,” “wrong,” “good,” and “bad.” Usually,
we focus on human beings and their actions as the main objects of our moral or ethical
evaluation. We have an extensive vocabulary for expressing such judgments about
people and their conduct _ with terms such as ethical, moral, unethical, immoral and
amoral, to cite the most obvious.

Activity 2: Have you ever judged actions of animals – cows, dogs, lions, hyenas or
wolves – using terms moral/immoral or right/ wrong? Why not?

The discipline called ethics or moral philosophy differs from the ordinary,
commonsense approach, for it begins with an explicit awareness of the moral
dimensions of our lives. Rather than assuming ethical or moral matters as given, it
focuses on these with an attitude of questioning, making deliberate efforts to reflect on
the issues, problems and concepts involved.

In its pursuits, ethics searches for answers through rigorous methods of examination,
and it subjects its own claims to intense scrutiny. Its ultimate aim is to provide
systematic explanations and well-grounded arguments regarding ethical questions.

1
Thus, ethics may be defined as the thoughtful analysis and evaluation of the standards
and principles by which we issue judgments in terms of moral values.

Ethics is the philosophical study of values and what constitutes good and bad human
conduct. It is concerned with questions of right and wrong, of duty and obligation and
of moral responsibility. Briefly, ethics, as a formal field of philosophical inquiry, is the
philosophical study of morality.

Activity3: Is ethics the exclusive province of philosophers? Is it only a matter of

abstract theorization? What is its value in human life?

Although ethics is predominantly a philosophical field of inquiry, it is not the exclusive

province of philosophers. Writers, scientists, politicians, religious leaders, judges,
educators, students and laypersons – in short, people from all walks of life – have
adopted the philosophical spirit in their reflections on moral questions.

Nor is ethics a matter of abstract theorizing and sheer speculation having little or no
relevance for our real lives. But rather it offers us ways of thinking about the moral
features of our own existence – our assumptions, beliefs, judgments, ideas, concepts,
values and conducts – in a serious and careful manner. Significantly, then, such modes
of thought always open up paths for self-awareness and self reflection.

The word ethics comes from the Greek ethos, meaning something like ‘morals’. In fact,
ethics is defined as the systematic reflection on what is moral. In this definition,
morality is the whole of opinions, decisions and actions with which people express what
they think is good or right. So, in short, to think ethically, you need to systematically
reflect on what people think is good or right.

Activity 4: Can you mention some of the major branches of ethics?

2
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide
ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and
applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and
what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than
expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus
on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments,
and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical
task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This
may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we
should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics
involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal
rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied
ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between
metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue
of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial
behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of
self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that
procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, “where do rights come
from?” and “what kind of beings have rights?

Applied ethics is one of the major branches of ethics which consists of the analysis of
specific, controversial moral issues.

The task in applied ethics is to resolve specific moral issues and morally concrete cases
which arise in different areas of life. It attempts to explain and justify positions on
specific moral problems such as capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, sex outside

3
marriage, animal rights, etc. Applied ethics borrows insights from metaethics and
theoretical normative ethics in an attempt to resolve specific moral problem (thus the
name ‘applied ethics’). When, for example, applied to medicine, this form of applied
ethics is called “medical ethics” (sometimes expand to include biotechnology and called
“bioethics”). When applied to commerce, this becomes “business ethics”; when applied
to the press, “journalism ethics”; when applied to engineering; “engineering ethics and
so on. As an area of enquiry environmental ethics is one area of applied ethics. One
thing is different about environmental ethics, however. Many environmental ethicists,
alone among various other applied ethicists, envision that the scope of their field moves
outside the human sphere.

Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific,
controversial moral issues.

Activity 5: What is the difference between normative ethics and non

normative ethics? Discuss some of the normative theories.

In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such
as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, sexual ethics, and social ethics.
Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an "applied
ethical issue."

First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of
people both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for
example, is not an applied ethical issue, since virtually everyone agrees that this
practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control would be an applied
ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and against gun
control.

4
The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a
distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array of
sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military, involuntary
commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic vs. socialistic business practices,
public vs. private health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these
issues are controversial and have an important impact on society, they are not all moral
issues. Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a
given society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and
zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices,
such as our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently,
issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially
prohibited and immoral.

However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For example, many people would
argue that sexual promiscuity is immoral, but may not feel that there should be social
policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly,
some social policies forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales.
But, so long as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a
resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied
ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere social policy: it must be morally
relevant as well.

Activity 6: When does a case involve troubling moral issue?

Moral issues are, roughly, those issues which raise normative questions about the rights
and welfare of persons and other sentient beings, and about the character of the agent, in
particular, about the kinds of persons we should strive to become. Normative questions
are questions of value (e.g., “was it morally permissible for X to have that abortion?”)

5
as opposed to questions of mere fact (e.g., “Did X decide to have the abortion?”). The
distinction between matters of value and matters of fact is often called ‘the
normative/descriptive distinction.’

In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of
abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our
normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces
greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism it would be morally
acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival
normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions.
Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from
using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of an issue. The solution
to this stalemate is to consult several representative normative principles on a given
issue and see where the weight of the evidence lies.

Normative Principles Used In Applied Ethical Discussions: Arriving at a short list of

representative normative principles is itself a challenging task. The principles selected
must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism which might focus
only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit
by people on both side of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles which
appeal to our duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a
nonbeliever engaged in the debate.

The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical
discussions:

♦ Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial

consequences for the individual in question.

6
♦ Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for society.

♦ Principle of benevolence: help those in need.

♦ Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they
cannot do so themselves.

♦ Principle of harm: do not harm others.

♦ Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.

♦ Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.

♦ Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or

physical body.

♦ Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation

for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.

♦ Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression,

and safety.

The above principles represent the spectrum of traditional normative principles and are
derived from specific consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories. The first two
principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since they appeal to
the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining
principles are non-consequentialist and derive from duty-based and rights-based
theories. The principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness
derive from non-consequentialist duties we have toward others. The principles of
autonomy, justice, and the various rights derive from non-consequentialist moral rights.

7
CHAPTER TWO: DEVELOPMENT ETHICS

Introduction

Development’ has long been equated with modernization and Westernization and
studied as a straightforward economic issue. The discipline of economics has been the
main source of policy prescription for development decision makers. This view is now
widely criticized as ethnocentric and as economically reductionist. Change is occurring:
economics itself is reintegrating ethics into its conceptualization, methodology, and
analysis; a new paradigm of development is in gestation; and a new discipline,
development ethics, has come into being. Development ethics centers its study of
development on the value questions posed: What is the relation between having goods
and being good in the pursuit of the good life; what are the foundations of a just society;
and what stance should societies adopt toward nature? The new discipline emerges from
two sources, which are now converging: from engagement in development action to the
formulation of ethical theory, and from a critique of mainstream ethical theory to the
crafting of normative strategies to guide development practice. Development ethics has
a dual mission: to render the economy more human and to keep hope alive in the face of
the seeming impossibility of achieving human development for all.

Dear learners, before examining what development ethics is and its focus, it is
important to discuss briefly what development means.

All definitions of development contain the central notion of a process of change from a
less desirable to a more desirable kind of society – in short the notion of progress.
Beyond this, however, lies some basic disagreement over questions such as:
Development of what? How is what is desirable defined, and by whom? How is
progress to be achieved? What if (as generally seems to be the case) progress for one
group within a society is gained at the expense of other groups?

8
Thus, just as there are many answers to the questions of what constitutes progress, so
there are many meanings given to ‘development’.

Dear learners, let us explore some of different definitions of development.

2.1. Definitions of Development

1. Economic well-being and GNP per capita: Perhaps the simplest way of thinking
about development is that it means an increase in prosperity. At a national level, the
most used measure of economic well-being is gross national product (GNP). GNP uses
market valuations, and is in practice a measure of national income; GNP per capita
gives an indication of the average material living standard of a nation’s people. It is a
measure of the average income of each member of the population including what they
may earn or receive from abroad.

An increase in GNP per capita could mean development in that it implies better material
living standards and less poverty. However, a measure such as GNP per capita has
limitation regarding giving full indication of the prevalence of poverty. GNP per capita
is a measure of average income based on market valuations, and thus there are several
ways in which the measure fails to give full indication of the incidence of poverty.

One of them is, as an average measure, GNP per capita tells us nothing about income
distribution within a country. Also, even where income distribution figures exist, they
will generally be based on surveys carried out using the household as a unit rather than
individuals.

In short, GNP as an indicator underestimates both subsistence and collective goods,

whereas it overvalues the commercialized, the individualized and the organized.

2. Economic development: There is another sense in which an increase in GNP per

capita even though it does not relate precisely to individuals’ improved well being or

9
reduced incidence of poverty. An increased GNP – or, more precisely, increased GDP –
means economic growth. Economic growth is simply a continued increase in the size of
an economy, i.e. a sustained increase in output over a period. However, for most
economists development is more than this. Whereas growth means more of the same
type of output, development implies more thoroughgoing changes, changes in the social
and technical relations of production. Thus the productive capacity of a society as a
whole has to increase, rather than just increasing productivity within its productive
enterprises.

Economic development, thus, is raising the productive capacities of societies, in terms

of their technologies (more efficient tools and machines), technical cultures (knowledge
of nature, research and capacity to develop improved technologies), and the physical,
technical and organizational capacities and skills of those engaged in production.

3. Industrialization and modernization: there are two different was defining industry.
The first divides all economic activities into sectors and defines industry as the
production of all material goods not derived directly from the land. Industry, thus,
comprises the mining, energy and manufacturing sectors, and does not include
agriculture or services. The second definition emphasizes technical and social change:
an industrial production process is one that uses advanced technology and a complex
technical division of labour, and is linked to other forms of production through
combining a wide range of raw materials, skills and sources of energy. Thus
industrialization can mean simply an increased percentage of GDP from industrial
sector output, or, more fundamentally, a general change of social structure,
organization, scale, concentration and ways of thinking towards giving primacy to
productivity, efficiency and instrumentality.

10
The view of development as modernization comes particularly from the 1950s and
1960s. For example, historically, modernization is the process of change toward those
types of social, economic and political systems that have developed in Western Europe
and North America from the 17th century to the 19th and have then spread to other
countries. According to Smelter, modernization is the following interrelated technical,
economic and ecological processes’: in the realm of technology, the change from
simple and traditionalized techniques towards the application of scientific knowledge;
in agriculture, the evolution from subsistence farming towards commercial production
of agricultural goods. This means specialization in cash crops, purchase of non-
agricultural products in the market, and often agricultural wage labor; in industry, the
transition from the use of human and animal power towards industrialization proper, or
men aggregated at power-driven machines, working for monetary return with the
products of manufacturing processes entering into a market based on a network of
exchange relation; in ecological arrangements, the movement from farm and village
towards urban centers.

4. Human needs and conditions for development: another approach to development

is to start not from production but from human needs. Such an approach is advocated by
Dudley Seers and he points out the importance of value judgments in deciding what is
or is not development. Seers suggests that the realization of the potential of human
personality is a universally acceptable aim, and development must therefore entail
ensuring the conditions for achieving this aim. The first three conditions are:

♦ the capacity to obtain physical necessities (particularly food);

♦ a job (not necessarily paid employment, but including studying, working on a

family farm or keeping house) and

♦ equality, which should be considered an objective in its own right.

11
Seers continues: “the questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore:
what has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment?
What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have become less severe,
then without doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If
one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially all three
have, it would be strange to call the result ‘development’”.

Seers challenges the type of economic definition which emphasis on productivity,

growth at any price, and increasing GNP per capita as the ultimate goal. As we have
seen economic development of this type does not necessarily reduce the numbers in
poverty, let alone meet other human needs such as those pointed to by Seers.

Another strand of thinking on what is desirable for includes non-economic factors

directly in what is meant by development. Such approach is advocated by Amartya Sen
and views poverty in terms not of poor material living standards but of lack of choice or
capability: poverty meaning the failure to be able to take a full part in human society.

Denis Goulet also describes it as: the prevalent emotion of underdevelopment is a sense
of personal and societal impotence in the face of disease and death, of confusion and
ignorance as one gropes to understand change, of servility towards men whose
decisions govern the course of events, of hopelessness before hunger and natural
catastrophe. Chronic poverty is a cruel kind of hell, and one cannot understand how
cruel that hell is merely by gazing upon poverty as an object. In these terms, if
development means combating or ameliorating poverty, then development means
restoring or enhancing basic human capabilities and freedoms.

According to Seers the following makes a full list of eight conditions for what we might
call human-needs centered development. Human-needs centered development is a term

12
for development where the level of satisfaction of various dimensions of human needs
is considered to have improved. The eight conditions for development are:

♦low levels of material poverty;

♦low level of unemployment;

♦relative equality;

♦democratization of political life;

♦‘true’ national independence both economically and politically;

♦good literacy and education levels;

♦relatively equal status for women and participation by women and

♦sustainable ability to meet future needs.

Any comprehensive definition of development is likely to combine a number of such

dimensions and to be based on supposedly universal values.

Activity 1: Compare and contrast different definitions of development

In summery, development has a range of meanings, from basic economic well-being

(measured more or less badly by GNP per capita) to broad notions of economic
development incorporating wholesale societal change, modernization and
industrialization, and comprehensive definitions comprising lists o human needs to be
satisfied that go way beyond the material to include social and political aspects.

Dear learners, having discussed various meanings of development now let us look at the
meaning, sources, scope and nature of the new discipline called development ethics.

2.2. Definition and Origins of Development Ethics

13
Development ethics comes to fill the gap in the ethical study of development by a
holistic, defined in a macro level, normative and practical way. According to Nigel
Dower, former president of International Development Ethics Association (IDEA),
“international development ethics is the ethical reflection on the ends and means of
local, national and global development”. From the same perspective, Crocker defines
development ethics as an ethical deliberation on the ends and means of socioeconomic
change in poor countries and regions and mainly focuses on the element of poverty and
the division between rich and poor countries – North and South – under moral issues.
Development ethics combines tasks and methodological instruments from a variety of
scientific fields such as economics, political sciences, religious studies, anthropology,
environmental studies, ecology and other. Thereby it can be characterized as a
multidisciplinary area of study, or as Gasper states as an “interdisciplinary meeting
place”. Goulet describes it as a kind of ‘disciplined eclecticism’, as he argues “eclectic
in its choice of subject matter but disciplined in its study of it”.

Regarding its origins, development ethics can be characterized as a relatively new field
of study. Even though the ethical question of ‘what is a good life?’ and the term
‘eudemonia’ –a synonymous of happiness - trace back to ancient Greek philosophers
and particularly to Aristotle’s ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, the cultivation of moral and
ethical issues regarding development studies and the formulation of development ethics
such as came to the front with the rise of an economic and humanistic movement in
1950s. This humanistic approach of the economy and society is theoretically
represented by the French economist Louis Joseph Lebret and his student American
Denis Goulet and defines development “as the basic question of values and the creation
of a new civilization”. Mohandas Gandhi in India and the Swedish economist Gunnar
Myrdal could be labeled as precursors of development ethics.

14
For many years development has been perceived as a straightforward economic issue.
Orthodox economists, policy makers, governors, interregional organizations and so on,
confront the problem of underdevelopment in an instrumental and administrational way.
History has shown that this functional approach cannot provide answers to the issue of
development. It is easy to measure the problem but difficult to solve it. Contemporary
worldwide status quo proves that no considerable distance has been covered with regard
to ordinary problems such as water scarcity, famine, and bad sanitary conditions in the
non-developed third world.

At the same time, within developed countries, new problems come to the fore, with
massive consumption on the one side and new massive social groups under the poverty
line on the other. Moreover on an international scale, even in cases that development in
terms of growth or industrial expansion has taken place, e.g. China and/or India, the
ecological destruction is huge. Hence, development should be re- examined under
considerations that arose from the ethical question of ‘development for what?’

Development ethics aspires to show the road towards a new development paradigm that
investigates development in light of fundamental ancient ethical queries on the meaning
of the good life, the foundation of justice in society and the human stance towards
nature. The study of development ethics attempts to discuss and codify the
aforementioned ethical quires borrowing scientific instruments from economists,
political studies, anthropologists, environmental scientists and others. Thus, it can be
characterized as an interdisciplinary area. To this effort, the contribution of Denis
Goulet is distinctive. He offers the conceptual frame and gives the dimensions of a
relatively new field of study. .

15
Many prominent scholars, among them Dower, Crocker, Clark, Gasper, incorporate the
methodological principles of Goulet with regards to development ethics approach,
maintaining their own antinomies.

2.3. A brief view to the Ethical Study of Development

During the 20th century, for many economists, particularly in lines of orthodox
economics, development was viewed as a conventional problem of economic growth in
terms of the increase of material goods. The technological expansion, the boost of the
production, the sense that people could overcome nature, led many economists,
government officials and planners to an ‘engineering’ approach to the concept of
development. Development was perceived as an absolutely measurable matter, as a
synonymous of economic growth- the variation of GDP for instance. Ethical inquiries
on the concept of development were viewed mostly as an affair for philosophers and
humanists than economists. Regarding the debate within ethics and economics, Robbins
asserts that “unfortunately it does not seem logically possible to associate the two
studies in any form but mere juxtaposition. Economics deal with ascertainable facts;
ethics with valuations and obligations. The two fields of enquiry are not on the same
plane of discourse”. Robbins expresses the vein in economic study that perceives
economics as a science which takes place after the elucidation of moral and ethical
propositions.

On the other hand, there are those that advocate the coexistence of ethical justifications
and humanistic ideas with rational economic methodology. This includes the discussion
between means and ends in human development. Hardison and Myers underline that
“there need be no conflict between the economists and the humanists…The
development of man for himself may still be considered the ultimate end but economic
progress can also be one of the principal means of attaining it”. Clark also suggests a

16
closer relation of philosophers and social scientists in the field of development. He
argues that even a great attempt has been made towards this direction; more empirical
work is needed in order for ethical considerations (such as ‘what is good life’) to be
adjusted to real development practices. Other influential studies in the social science
perspective within the context of an ethical justification of development include those
of Seers, Nussbaum and others.

For economists, the perception that economic policy as well as economic efficiency
hinges on deontological ethics has gradually been established in works such as e.g.
Polanyi, Sen, Hausman and McPherson. More precisely, Hausman and McPherson
codify the reasons why economists should be interested in moral questions.
Accordingly, i) the morality of agents affects their behaviour and as a consequence the
economic upshots, ii) welfare economics lies on morals presumptions, iii) public
policies are driven by moral commitments which should be linked with economic
results, and finally iv) positive and normative economics are often intertwined, so that
even positive concerns contain moral presuppositions. The some argues that,
“economists who refuse to ‘dirty their hands’ with ethical matters will not know what
technical problem to investigate”.

The contribution of Amartya Sen is crucial to the introduction of ethical justifications

and humanistic approach to social sciences, economics as well as development studies.
Sen is one of the central figures having an influence to the equity issue within theories
of justice. He also contributes to the ethical affairs by perceiving the expansion of
freedom as both the primary end and the principal means of development. Sen (1989) in
his influential book On Ethics and Economics draws a bridge across ethical matters and
economic rationality. He advocates that the study of moral philosophy is inevitably
necessary to the study of economics.

17
It would be unfair not to underline that in contemporary economic thought,
development is broadly defined as economic growth plus social change. A strong
supporter of this approach to development is the United Nations which speaks for
economic and social development. The concept of a human development paradigm is
extensively accepted. According to Haq, founder of the Human Development Report,
“the basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices... The objective of
development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and
creative lives”. In our times, as stated in the lines of the official planner of United
Nations, humanness is at the core of the discussion.

Development ethicists typically ask the following related questions:

♦ What should count as (good) development?

♦ Should we continue using the concept of development instead of, for example,
'progress,' 'transformation,' 'liberation,' or 'postdevelopment alternatives to
development'?

♦ What should be a society's basic economic, political and cultural goals and strategies,
and what principles should inform their selection?

♦ What moral issues emerge in development policymaking and practice and how should
they be resolved?

♦ How should the burdens and benefits of development be conceived and distributed?

♦Who or what should be responsible for bringing about development? A nation's

government, civil society or the market? What role—if any— should more affluent
states, international institutions, and nongovernmental associations and individuals have
in the self-development of poor countries?

18
♦What are the most serious local, national and international impediments to good
development?

♦To what extent, if any, do moral scepticism, moral relativism, national sovereignty and
political realism pose a challenge to this boundary-crossing ethical inquiry?

♦Who should decide these questions and by what methods?

In addition to accepting the importance of these questions, most development ethicists

share ideas about their field and the general parameters for ethically based development.
First, development ethicists contend that development practices and theories have
ethical and value dimensions and can benefit from explicit ethical analysis and
criticism.

Second, development ethicists tend to see development as a multidisciplinary field that

has both theoretical and practical components that intertwine in various ways. Hence,
development ethicists aim not merely to understand development, conceived generally
as desirable social change, but also to argue for and promote specific conceptions of
such change.

Third, although they may understand the terms in somewhat different ways,
development ethicists are committed to understanding and reducing human deprivation
and misery in poor countries.

Fourth, a consensus exists that development projects and aid givers should seek
strategies in which both human well-being and a healthy environment jointly exist and
are mutually reinforcing.

Fifth, these ethicists are aware that what is frequently called 'development'— for
instance, economic growth—has created as many problems as it has solved.
'Development' can be used both descriptively and normatively. In the descriptive sense,

19
'development' is usually identified as the processes of economic growth,
industrialization, and modernization that result in a society's achieving a high (per
capita) gross domestic product. So conceived, a 'developed' society may be either
celebrated or criticized. In the normative sense, a developed society, ranging from
villages to national and regional societies, is one whose established institutions realize
or approximate (what the proponent believes to be) worthwhile goals—most centrally,
the overcoming of economic and social deprivation. In order to avoid confusion, when a
normative sense of 'development' is meant, the noun is often preceded by a positive
adjective such as 'good' or 'ethically justified'.

A sixth area of agreement is that development ethics must be conducted at various

levels of generality and specificity. Just as development debates occur at various levels
of abstraction, so development ethics should assess (1) basic ethical principles, (2)
development goals and models such as 'economic growth', 'growth with equity', 'basic
needs' and, in the nineties, 'sustainable development', 'structural adjustment' and 'human
development' (United Nations Development Programme), and (3) specific institutions
and strategies.

Seventh, most development ethicists believe their enterprise should be international in

the triple sense that the ethicists engaged in it come from many nations, including poor
ones; that they are seeking to forge an international consensus; and that this consensus
emphasizes a commitment to alleviating worldwide deprivation.

Eighth, although many development ethicists contend that at least some development
principles or procedures are relevant for any poor country, most agree that development
strategies must be contextually sensitive. What constitutes the best means—for
instance, state provisioning, market mechanisms, civil society and their hybrids—will

20
depend on a society's history and stage of social change as well as on regional and
global forces.

Ninth, this flexibility concerning development models and strategies is compatible with
the uniform rejection of certain extreme. For example, most development ethicists
would repudiate two models: (1) the maximization of economic growth in a society
without paying any direct attention to converting greater opulence into better human
living conditions for its members, what Sen and Jean Drèze call 'unaimed opulence',
and (2) an authoritarian egalitarianism in which physical needs are satisfied at the
expense of political liberties.

Activity : Explain why and how development ethics is significant.

2.5. Goals of Development Ethics and its strategies

For development ethicists, development is perceived as a relative good which is

subordinated to the meaning of life. Each society gives answers to the fundamental
inquiries of ‘what is good life’ and ‘what is good society’ in a distinct and unique way
which is chiefly determined by the value system wherein any society has adopted.

Goulet writes, the discipline of development ethics is the conceptual cement that binds
together multiple diagnoses of problem with their policy implications through an
explicit phenomenological study of values which lays bare the value costs of alternative
courses of action. What goals ought to be posed and which strategies can be applied in
order for these goals to be achieved, depends on the value system of each society. He
stresses the importance of the dynamic of value change in determining what is to be
defined as the ‘good life’ and the ‘good society’. In his words, ‘development’ is above
all a question of values. Innovation and novel behavior patterns that development brings
up usually embarrass the value system of a society. A convectional approach to
development -in terms of social scientists’ study and practices- confronts values either

21
as aids or as obstacles to attaining its goals. In other words, development goals are
predetermined and values are used under a functional way by subordinating them. On
the contrary, development ethics looks into dynamics of value change in each society
and builds its paradigm on this idea. For development ethicists, innovation and novel
behavior patterns can be good only if they can be adjusted with the value change and
the meaning of the “good life” that every society espouses.

2.5.1. Ethical Goals of development

Despite the fact that development is a relative good in terms of value issues, Goulet
argues that there are three common acceptable universal values, namely, i) life-
sustenance, ii) esteem, and iii) freedom that societies and individuals ought to
investigate within a value based context of the “good life”. Theses universal accepted
values compose the ethical goals of development.

i) Life-sustenance refers to the nurture of life. Goulet points out that one of
development’s most important goals is to prolong men’s lives and render those men less
‘stunted’ by disease, extreme exposure to nature’s elements, and defenselessness
against enemies. The importance of life sustaining goods (e.g. food, shelter, healing or
medicine) is generally acknowledged by all societies. Because of life-sustenance as a
value of universal significance, life-sustaining indices are also used as a measurement
of development.

ii) Esteem: All human beings in all societies feel the necessity for respect, dignity,
honor and recognition. The discussion involves esteem values and material prosperity,
and, particularly, how esteem contends with “development” (in a sense of high rate of
well-being, economical and technological advance). The more the material prosperity
becomes the centre task of the development of a society the greater is the subordination
of esteem to material affluence. The reaction of a society to the aforementioned material

22
approach to development and its need for esteem can lead these societies to opposite
directions, either towards “development” or towards resistance of it. In the first case,
society tries to gain esteem via “development”, while at the latter it try to protect its
profound esteem from inward “development”. Both acts seek to gain esteem. Therefore,
esteem is a universal goal whether “development” is accepted or not.

iii) Freedom is valued both from developed and non-developed societies as one of the
components of the “good life”. Development ought to free humans from all servitudes.
Even though there is a vast philosophical discussion on the term and the claim that
freedom is enhanced by development is not self-evident, freedom is widely accepted as
something beneficial and desirable. The debate lies again between freedom and material
well-being. In a consumer society it can be accepted that the degree of freedom rises by
material expansion, and thus constitutes an increase of well-being. On the other hand, in
traditional societies, the value system may adopt a completely different confrontation
over needs and wants. In any case, the point is that the matter of opinion is freedom.
Furthermore, in the discussion over freedom, a significant distinction should be made
between freedom from wants and freedom for wants. The former refers to the situation
where human needs are adequately met, while the latter to the case where the gestations
of new wants are controlled and individuals possess multiplied wants.

2.5.2. Ethical Strategies of development

In development ethics, strategic principles are normative judgments which provide both
the notional and practical framework under within which development goals should be
discussed and policy recommendations over those goals ought to be formulated.
Accordingly, three ethical strategic are targeted:

1) The abundance of goods in a sense that people need to have ‘enough’ in order to be
more. In order to understand the notion of this principle, it becomes necessary to take

23
into account the ontological nature of human beings. In an ontological sense, almost all
organisms must go outside of them in order to be perfect. Only fully perfect beings
would have no needs at all. Totally imperfect beings on the other hand would be
incapable of needing certain goods. Humans are perfect (or imperfect) to such a degree
that “men have needs because their existence is rich enough to be capable of
development, but poor to realize all potentialities at one time or with their resource. At
any given time man is less than he can become and what he can become depends
largely on what he can have.

Hence, men need ‘to have enough’ goods in order to be human. This must be
investigated under the notion of a humanistic approach on how much is ‘enough’ for
people in order to have a ‘good life’. There is not an absolute answer to the above issue.
The response to the aforementioned inquiry is found in the historical relation among
men and societies. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that underdevelopment (poverty,
misery, diseases, mass famine etc) diminishes humanity. Thereby, ‘enough’ should be,
at the minimum, all these goods that lead to cover biological needs, and additionally to
free part of human energy in order for it to be allocated to a wider range of life aspects
beyond covering first order needs. Altogether with the concept of ‘enough’ goods there
is that of ‘superfluous’ wealth. At the same time, whereas underdevelopment hits two
thirds of the globe, rich classes and nations consume with a superfluous way by
exploiting nature recourses. This can be characterized inhuman in twofold: First, the
maintenance of superfluous wealth along with underdevelopment conditions is inhuman
both for those who have it and those who not have it. Second, the hyper-consumption
manner of life in “developed” nations has distorted the way that the “good life” is
perceived: “having more” (material goods, wealth) leads to the notion of “being more”
(successful, attractive, valuable). Therefore, with regard to the strategic principle of the
abundance of goods, three distinctive points are noteworthy. First, all individuals need

24
to have ‘enough’ goods in order to realize themselves as human beings. Second, enough
is not an absolutely relative measure but it can be defined in an objective basis. Third,
both underdevelopment situations and superfluous wealth lead to dehumanization of
life.

2) Universal solidarity. It concerns an ontological and philosophical issue. It can be

distinctive in three points. First, all people be in agreement that beyond differences (in
nationality, race, culture, status etc) a common ‘humanness’ is present. Second, the
earth as a cosmic body is governed by identical laws (physical roles) and all men dwell
on this planet. Humans share a common occupation of the planet. In spite of differences
in geography or climate, all humans are linked directly or indirectly with other people
due to the fact of cohabitation into this cosmic body.

The third component of the universal solidarity is derived by the all humans’ unity to
destiny. In contrast, the existing state of affairs over the notion of universalism is in the
opposite direction. People have not yet realized the need of solidarity. Controversial
perspectives of development focus on narrow mercantile, strategic and ideological
interests. Under the present worldwide conditions, solidarity can be achieved only
through conflict against present rules and redefinition of the relations of power. Conflict
is a prerequisite for solidarity. Here it is appropriate to state the importance of classes’
struggle and the institutional building role to the problem of development. Development
ethicists assert that no universal solidarity exists to consolidate unfair social relations.
The rebuilding of social relations and institutions in a basis of equality is more than
necessary.

3) Participation. Theories of participation possess an important issue in the study of

development. In general, the elite theory claims that decision making into a society
concerns a ‘job’ for specialists in each particular field of life. Elite theory is made in a

25
basis of “competence” that leads to an alleged efficiency within a society. For
development ethics, participation is a matter for discussion. In Goulet’s words,
participation is best conceptualized as a kind of moral incentive enabling hitherto
excluded non-elites to negotiate new packages of material incentives benefiting them.
Even though development ethicists espouse that different kinds of development require
different forms of participation, they argue that non-elite participation in decision-
making enables people to mobilize and gives them control over their social destiny.

Activity : explain the goals and strategies of development ethics.

2.7. The concept of the Authentic Development

This section puts forth the concept of authentic development and distinguishes it from
the conventional notion of development or otherwise to the way that for many years the
developed nations deal with the problem of underdevelopment. The adjective
‘authentic’ is used by Goulet to endow the term ‘development’ with all those traits that
development should entail in order to be sustainable and human. Authentic
development refers to the means and ends of human action, or in other words, to the
vision of a better life and the way that this life can be accessed. As it is previously
mentioned, development ought to respond to long-standing philosophical inquiries
concerning the meaning of the good life, the foundation of justice in society and within
societies, and the stance of human individual and societies towards nature. Providing
satisfactory conceptual and institutional answers to these three questions is what
constitutes authentic development.

For all people and any society in the world, authentic development ought to cover at
least three objective aims that correspond to the aforementioned goals of development:
a) to pursue more and better life-sustaining goods for all human beings, b) to create and
improve the conditions that nurture the sense of esteem of individuals and societies, and

26
c) to release humans from all forms of servitude (to nature, to others people, to
institutions, to beliefs).

Any concept of human fulfillment is highly relative and as Goulet points out,
development can be examined as a dialectical process. Development goals are usually
interactive and no range exists among life protection, esteem and freedom. The essential
point is that authentic development should not judge the abovementioned goals (as is
conventionally the case) but these goals must become the criteria which authentic
development itself must be judged. In this mode, grading a nation high economic
growth does not mean that it has followed an authentic development pattern. No
authentic development can be achieved if massive consumption leads societies to an
entirely material way of living emphasizing the notion of ‘have’ instead of ‘be’; if
structural relations between nations and within them (among classes and individuals)
are competitive and there is not equal distribution of development proceeds; if the
exploitation of material resources leads to the destruction of ecological balance, if
technological advantages are used to abolish freedom.

Authentic development, namely sustainability and human development is at the center

of discussion for the last decades. In an effort to define authentic development, it is
agreed that any definition of development should take into account at least the
following six conceptual propositions:

1) Economic component, related with wealth, material life conditions (amenities), and
their equal distribution of them.

2) Social ingredient, connected with social goods as health, housing, education,

employment etc.

3) Political dimension, in a sense of the protection of human rights and political

freedom.

27
4) Cultural elements, with accord to the idea that cultures cultivate people’s identity and
self-esteem.

5) Ecological soundness, to promote a type of development that respects natural

resources and forces for the restoration of the environment.

6) System of meaning, which refers to the way that a society perceives beliefs, symbols
and values concerning the historical process and the meaning of life.

The aforementioned conceptual elements might reflect a consensus on what Goulet calls
authentic development. Important element not fully described within the above analysis
relate to issues of ethical value relativity and popular participation where overlap the
notion of development.

With respect to the first issue, societal value systems are threatened by changes and
social change is one of the main components of development. If we accept that
development affects values of society and vice versa, the concept of ‘existence
rationality’ should be investigated. However, what does this strange phrase mean?

According to Goulet, existence rationality defined as the process by which a society

devices a conscious strategy for obtaining its goals, given its ability to process
information and the constrains weighting upon it. In other words, existence rationality is
considered to be the value system that exists in any society and determines the course of
action undertaken to serve societal aims. The core value of existence rationality is to be
concerned of the provision of those ingredients that ensure what any society defines as
the good life. Thus, any change should be integrated in the principle of existence
rationality determined by each society.

Inasmuch as participation is one of the strategic principles of development as it is

asserted in a former section, it is an essential constituent of authentic development. Elite

28
problem-solvers (political elite, government officials, policy makers, specialists,
executives of intergovernmental organization and so on) usually view development as a
matter for competence. In contradiction to the conventional approach to issues of
decision-making, authentic development offers a pluralistic alternative to it. The
philosopher Ivan Illich underlines Participation is deprofessionalization in all domains
of life so as to make ordinary people responsible for their own well-being.

For ethicists, participation is perceived in the sense that common people are involved
not only as receivers of the privileges of development but also as agents of their destiny,
building their model of development. To what extent populace participation should
takes place is a matter for discussion, what is certain is that via participation at least
three vital actions are performed: participation (i) offers to non-elites the ability to state
goals independently of their social position, (ii) abolishes political patron, in a sense
that ordinary people themselves become problem-solvers in their social environment,
and (iii) launches individual and social formations to escape of the rationale of ‘do-it-
yourself’ problems of micro level gaining access the macro arena of decision-making.

Activity : what is authentic development? Do you think development is mere material

well being? Why not?
Activity : to what extent do you think the concept of development ethics is significant
for your country’s sustainable development?

Conclusion

The present analysis proposes an ethical view of development, introducing the

readers/students to the fundamental principles of the development ethics paradigm. As
mentioned previously, development ethics are related to an ethical reflection on the

29
ends and means of any developmental endeavor. Ethics incorporates with “the value
dynamisms of the instruments utilized by development agents” thus becoming a “means
of the means”. Any instrumental action (an economic policy for instance) should be
tested under an ethical deliberation taking into account the aforesaid ethical goals of
life-sustenance, esteem and freedom. Development ethics renders to people and
societies the way to be critically aware of the moral content of their choices. By the
formulation of particular ethical strategies –abundance of goods, universal solidarity
and participation - development ethicists show a way to find a road based on the
principles of an authentic (human and sustainable) development. Through this process
development ethics offers the ideal of hope; preserving hope “as the possibility of
creating new possibilities”.

Development ethics’ essential task is ‘human ascent’ to all relevant aspects of life and
authentic development should be perceived as the means and the end in this course of
action.

LESSON TWO: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

What is “sustainable development”?

When the concept “sustainable development” was first articulated in the Brundtland Report, the
emphasis was clearly anthropocentric. In face of increasing evidence that planetary systems vital to
life-support were under strain, the concept of sustainable development is constructed in the report to
encourage certain globally coordinated directions and types of economic and social development. The
report defines “sustainable development” in the following way:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

 the concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which
overriding priority should be given; and

30
  the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in terms of sustainability in all
countries—developed or developing, market-oriented or centrally planned. Interpretations will vary,
but must share certain general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic concept of
sustainable development and on a broad strategic framework for achieving it.

The report goes on to argue that “the industrial world has already used much of the planet’s ecological
capital. This inequality is the planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem; it is also its main ‘development’
problem” (WCED 1987). In the concept of sustainable development the report combines the resource
economist’s notion of “sustainable yield” with the recognition that developing countries of the world
are entitled to economic growth and prosperity. The notion of sustainable yield involves thinking of
forests, rivers, oceans and other ecosystems, including the natural species living in them, as a stock of
“ecological capital” from which all kinds of goods and services flow. Provided the flow of such goods
and services does not reduce the capacity of the capital itself to maintain its productivity, the use of the
systems in question is regarded as sustainable. Thus, the report argues that “maximum sustainable
yield must be defined after taking into account system-wide effects of exploitation” of ecological
capital (WCED 1987).

Sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of
investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional change are all in harmony
and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspiration.

For sustainable development to be meaningful, over consumption has to be brought under control. In
addition, in a free market economy, the private sector may not bother to conserve nature. For the sake
of profit, it may destroy forests, overuse mineral resources, or pollute air and water. This sector may
not take into account social costs or benefits.
Activity 2
Is the definition of sustainable development anthropocentric? Explain how it is a human centered one.
Discussion of sustainable development frequently focuses on forms of resource management, with an
emphasis on social justice and on the well-being of future generation of human beings. Indeed, the
most commonly cited definition of sustainable development is anthropocentric. But sustainable

31
development needs to take account of goods other than human well-being and the resource that
conduce thereto. Thus sustainable development can move beyond the anthropocentric to incorporate a
broader understanding of environmental ethics.
Sustainability requires a rare balance between the three sets of goals, namely, environmental,
economic and social ones. Once environmental/ecological sustainability has been achieved, then it is
possible to attain economic sustainability. If this condition is maintained then social stability can be
attained. For sustainable development to be meaningful, over consumption has to be brought under
control.
Sustainable development has economic, social, environmental and ethical dimensions. From an
economic perspective, a resource is efficiently allocated and optimally utilized if it is put to the use
that generates the highest possible returns. In free enterprise economies, the first two causes of poverty
and economic malaise may be overcome by setting in place a broad legal as well as effective and
quality infrastructural framework within which individuals and actors could pursue their self interest.
The required legal framework may consist of laws and security rules that promote sound investment,
and access to financial, labour and land transactions. To be really effective, the law must remove all
manner of discrimination with respect to opportunities regarding education, investments, health
services, land resources, capital and employment.
Socially, equitable distribution of the incomes on the other hand may be achieved through mechanisms
and social benefits like income supports, unemployment benefits and housing, free or discounted
education, health and transportation services.
From an environmental perspective, economic and social goals have to be pursued in ways that will
cause the least damage to the quality of the environment and limit the exhaustion of irreplaceable
resources.
Sustainable development is more than environmental action.

The principles in relation to sustainable development that are particularly relevant to the delivery of
environmental health services are:

1. Human beings are at the center of concern for sustainable development.

2. To achieve sustainable development, environmental protection must remain as integral part

of the developmental process.

32
 3. Equity in the delivery of services is an essential part of sustainable development.

4. Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens at all
levels.

5. Effective environmental legislation should be enacted.

6. Both the precautionary approach and environmental impact assessment should be widely
applied as tools in competent decision making.

So, there is no longer any justification for the claim often made by the vested interest group that
sustainable development is such an all-embracing term that it is completely meaningless.

33