Ethics in Western Philosophy

The Western Philosophy contains a rich literature on Ethics and Morality. The Western Philosophy starts from the writing of the Greeks (from the 4th century BCE). In the Middle ages, we find a scarcity of ethical literature which is free from religion. But again, in the age of the Renaissance (14th to 17th century) and Enlightenment (18th – 19th century) volumes of material were written on Ethics.

Earliest Understanding of Ethics

The term Ethics is derived from the Greek word, ‘Ethos’ meaning ‘custom’. It is the philosophical study of human behaviour to determine what is right or wrong behaviour. It is also called Moral Philosophy. The term ‘Moral’ itself is derived from the Latin ‘mores’ which means, ‘ways of behaviour’ or ‘human character’). 

These words assume that there is in man a spontaneous awareness of a distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour. That there is something called ‘Right’ Behaviour. 

In our current understanding, we distinguish between Morals and Ethics. Morality is derived from our personal values, whereas, Ethics is derived from ‘Ethos’ or social customs. But in the ancient Western Philosophy, “morals” is nothing but the Latin equivalent of the more Greek term, “Ethics”.

In ancient western society, laws were made on the basis of the understanding of Ethics. These can be termed as the “Positive law”.

Positive Law v/s Natural Law

Positive Law is “a rule of action, promulgated by him/her who is in charge of a community in view of the common good”.  If the legislator is considered to be God, it is divine positive law;  If the legislator is a human person, and it is human positive law (e.g. civil law, criminal law, commercial law, etc.); In a case, a positive law lays down rules to be observed by human persons, it is a prescriptive law.  Natural Law is based on the laws of nature or is to be found universally true in society, such as Physical laws and Laws of economics. There is a big debate about the ethics is based on Positive law or natural law, i.e. is it a human construct or given in nature naturally?

Earliest societies base their theories on the principle of Moral Absolutism, i.e. Morality is absolute and objective, and moral principles cannot vary on the basis of the situation. Major Moral Philosophers on Moral Absolutism include Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Kant.

In recent times, a more situational approach has been explored. In Situational Ethics, the situation and contexts of human actions are also to be considered. Existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger and Consequentialists support this approach.

Let us discuss them one by one.

Basic Terms in Philosophy

Deontology: a school that holds that rules or norms are more important than values. Axiology: Study of nature of value and valuation, and of the kinds of things that are valuable. School of thought which says that values are more important than rules or norms. Imperatives: a thing that is very important and needs immediate attention or action. Hermeneutics: the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. Eschatology: Study of life after death.

Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

For Aristotle (4th century BCE), Human Actions have a purpose. They are not pointless. Every action aims at some good. For example, the doctor’s vaccination of the baby aims at the baby’s health. 

Aristotle’s Eudemonia: 

It is a term introduced by Aristotle that is translated as happiness. The term means to flourish (Highest fulfilment) or Good Spirit, which is the aim of the human person. It’s a lifelong habit, not a momentary happiness. It means the flourishing of human life.  

There are two types of actions according to Aristotle:

1. Some actions are done for the sake of some other end, i.e. they fulfil someone else’s end (means to other ends). 
2. Some actions are done for their own sake (ends in themselves). 

The “End in Themselves” also contributes to a wider good. If a person has true knowledge, their action will be in line with the greatest fulfilment, i.e. the greatest good of all. That good is Eudaimonia. 

In other words, eudaimonia is happiness, contentment, and fulfilment; it’s the name of the best kind of life, which is an end in itself and a means to live and fare well. In his opinion virtuous thinking of human beings leads to a good action that further cultivates good habits. These habits develop virtuous characters that lead to the final goal which is eudaimonia (happiness).

Aristotle’s Virtue: 

Virtue is defined as a habitual state or disposition of the soul. Aristotle is well-known for his dictum that virtue is the golden mean between two extremes: “Vice of excess” & “Vice of the minimal”. For example, Courage is the mean“vice of excess” of foolhardiness and the “vice of the minimal,” cowardice.

Virtues are of two types. 

1. Intellectual virtues: that which can be taught and learnt. Prudence is one such virtue.
2. Moral virtues can be achieved by repeatedly doing an action that becomes a habit. These cultivated habits lead to ultimate happiness. 

He gives four Cardinal virtues of Wisdom, Prudence, temperance, and Fortitude (Courage). These were initially contained in Plato’s Philosophy.

• Wisdom

• Prudence

• Temperance

• Courage  

What is morality then? 

It appeals to the character of a person rather than compliance with certain norms of right behaviour, or duty-based ethics (as of Kant). This is known as the Virtue ethics.

For Example, it may be the duty of a son to take care of his ailing mother, but if he does without being motivated by love, his moral life seems incomplete. Hence moral virtues alone can ensure human flourishing.

Aristotle also gives pride of place and space to the five intellectual virtues: 

• Practical knowledge (techne), 

• Prudence (phronesis) ratiocination or the ability to make arguments and 

• Proofs thanks to logic (episteme) 

• Intuitive insight (nous) and 

• Wisdom (sophia), the highest and noblest of them all.

Ethics as Natural Law

St Thomas Aquinas (a 13th-century Italian priest) thinks of Ethics as a Natural law which is God’s eternal reason or God’s eternal Law. He calls it a norm of Morality. 

The belief that Morality is a “Natural Law” is known as Thomism. It makes it easier to objectively define what is right and wrong. A natural law is an objective law, equal for all.

But this can pose a problem, it is difficult to know God’s eternal reason. 

How can we find the Eternal Reason?

• For Aquinas, “human reason” can work out the implications of this “natural law” by critically reflecting on what it entails. 
• It is morally good; that which is not is morally bad. 
• It is discovered partly through reason and Partly through intuition:

1. Intuitive Part comes naturally to us (“natural law”): It is intrinsic to the human act and not an extrinsic command or anything else outside of it. It furnishes us with those basic “first principles” it calls upon to carry out its reasoning process.
2. Human Reason: the right use of human reason furnishes “secondary principles” which direct one to always tell the truth and never utter falsehood. These are universal but liable to personal adaptations.

Problem of Omnipotence of God:

• William of Ockham (1290), an Enemy of Thomism, a British, pointed out that if a moral law is above all, then God’s omnipotence is in danger, as God would not be able to change such a law at will.
• Thus, he refused to reorganize the wrongness of human acts stemming from any inherent quality in themselves, but wholly and entirely from the free decision of God. 

Challenge to Christian Ethics – Problem of Free will

Why is Free will important in Ethics?

In order for humans to be held responsible for their actions, they must have free will to choose their actions. However, if the future is already decided by God, then humans cannot be held responsible for any of their actions; Instead, god is responsible for all the evil.

Free will makes humans responsible for their own actions. Attributing moral responsibility to human persons for their actions is morally justified in terms of ‘consequential justice’, namely the good educative, reformative preventive results from such an attribution.

Thus, the world must not be deterministic and instead should be indeterministic.  The Idea of Indeterminism (or as it is today called ‘libertarianism’) upholds the freedom of the human will against all kinds of determinism and rejects all kinds of ‘causes,’ external or internal, of human actions. 

Determinism and Fatalism

Determinism is the philosophical theory that holds that everything and every event is already decided (probably by god), and therefore human person and his actions, are irresistibly caused by some other preceding thing or event, instead of a person’s free will.  Fatalism: Things and events just happen and are therefore unpredictable. There is a milder sort of determinism. Admitting that every event necessarily has a cause, fatalism asserts that as far as human actions are concerned, it is enough that this cause be internal to the subject. For example, a person’s beliefs, character, desires, and heredity determine every event in this world instead of god. This system is also deterministic, i.e. the future is decided by the past, but all subjects are completely free and responsible.  Whereas for determinism everything or event is explainable by preceding causes and therefore predictable, for fatalism, nothing can be said to be the cause of anything else.

Legalistic view of Ethics 

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English Philosopher, wrote the book Leviathan (meaning a gigantic monster) in which he noted his image of the all-powerful state and a need for a powerful state in modern society.

He compares the modern powerful state which restricts us with a chaotic “state of Nature”, which is free but violent.

• State of Nature: Hobbes gives a description of “man in the free state of nature”, that is before humans banded together to set up social structures and institutions. Life was sheer hell in those times when the “State of Nature” existed, and man behaved unto man like a ferocious wild beast (homo homini lupus). 
• Modern State: Humans established the state primarily to prevent, by sheer superior brute force, humans from attacking each other, expropriating each other’s property and tearing each other to shreds. 

But to establish such a state with this measure of peace and order, each individual had to pay a price: 

• He sacrificed some of his freedom and 
• The sacrifice of his natural desire to possess everything for himself. 

Hobbes is a hedonist, i.e. pleasure was the motivating principle for him. It was the naturally human desire for pleasure that led him to set up the state. 

The state enacted various laws to make humans behave in accordance with the laws of nature. Power is thus a necessary constituent of law. The state would need to be invested with all power and authority so that none would dare to challenge it. 

Hobbes Legalism

• The source of moral rightness or wrongness, the criterion of morality, is what the law says, whether it be divine law or positive (civil) law. 
• Earlier philosophers forbid some actions because they were bad. However, for Hobbes, actions are bad because they are forbidden. 

Deontological Ethics of Kant 

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) also known as the Sage of Konigsberg, concerns himself with establishing Ethics as a duty.

Kant’s Idea of “Good Will”

He starts by analysing the idea of ‘good will’ – i.e. the only thing which we can call ‘good’ without qualification. If the Individual ‘will’ to act is in accordance with the “Good Will”, it is moral.

• A ‘good’ will acts not merely in accordance with, but out of ‘reverence’ for the moral law and therefore it is such a will in which an individual acts for the sake of duty alone.
• A “Good in itself” is not good because beneficial results (Utilitarian) may accrue from it but are morally good without the need for any other qualification.  
• A ‘good will’ does not act for self-interest or because it is impelled by some natural inclination, but it acts because duty (moral ‘obligation’) is duty. 
• He does not mean to say that to act in legitimate self-interest is immoral. He only says that the ultimate basis of the moral law as such – the source of the moral obligation – is the moral law itself.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Norms are given as imperatives (Duties) – categorical and hypothetical imperatives.

1. Categorical Imperative: duties that have to be fulfilled in any situation. For example: Don’t cheat your taxes. Kant tries to show that duty, far from being born out of experience, is an ideal of pure reason.
2. Hypothetical imperative: Duties that are conditional. Ex: If you want to go to a medical school study hard. 

To act in ‘Good Will’ is a moral Obligation or a ‘Categorical Imperative’. Moral Norms must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you. 

For example, certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) must be absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. 

Three Formulations of Categorical imperative: 

• Morality is command of reason: Those actions are prohibited which you rationally wouldn’t want to happen to you. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

• Freewill as necessary postulate of morality without it morality is not possible; One can’t be held responsible for determinate action.

• Kingdom of Ends: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end”. 

• Kant regards humans as rational beings, and in their higher realm belong to the transcendental world of freedom, where everyone acts as if his conduct is governed purely by his practical reason, i.e. “what ought I do”. 

• Each being is a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends: Since all beings are rational, free and end in themselves. In this world everyone is sovereign because he himself is the lawgiver to himself, and therefore absolutely free.

Thus, it is upon the society to decide upon what is right and wrong. Such a good can be called a “Good Will”, which is good in itself and must be considered as a categorical imperative.

Kant’s Criticism

Problem with Kantian Ethics 

• It does not inspire any motivation to do good, only an obligation to do good. Basing moral conduct on external grounds – the will, of God (Occam) or of positive law (Durkheim). 

• An atheist would be deprived of any moral foundation. 

• Against virtue ethics: It gives no importance granted virtues of a man.

• Sometimes duty-based ethics goes against common sense. For Example, during wartime, thousands and thousands of innocents like women and children are brutally killed by the army. But army men follow duty-based ethics, so they simply kill the innocent in order to execute their plan which is part of their duty as army men.

• Positive law would scarcely help matters: it is susceptible to so many variants, often on the basis of vested interests.

Challenges to Kant from a Situation Ethics point of view: 

• The existentialists challenge the very basis of ‘essence’. They tend to reject the very idea of human nature. Humans 

• Cultural and Ethical Subjectivism: Studies in anthropology and sociology have led us to accept Cultural Relativism. Each culture has different parameters of ethics and no one culture which can be seen as superior to others. Each culture makes sense and none is sufficient unto it-self within its own religious and philosophical presuppositions.

Three branches of ethics are generally studied by philosophers:

Applied ethics: practical questions of right behaviour in given, usually contentious, situations. Normative ethics: questions of how one ought to be and act.  Addresses Questions like – “What should I do?”, evaluating specific practices and principles of action. A 1st order study, involving substantive questions Meta Ethics: It is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It addresses questions such as “What is goodness?” and “How can we tell what is good from what is bad?”, seeking to understand the assumptions underlying normative theories.  A 2nd Order study, involving formal questions. A metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that studying moral judgments about proper actions can guide us to a true account of the nature of morality.

Meta Ethical Theories:

Emotivism

Emotivism is a view propounded by AJ Ayer. It is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.

Perspectivism

RM Hare’s Blik – Universal prescriptivism (often simply called prescriptivism) is the meta-ethical view that claims that, rather than expressing propositions, ethical statements function similarly to imperatives which are universalizable — whoever makes a moral judgment is committed to the same judgment in any situation where the same relevant facts pertain.

The positivist approach of Emile Durkheim (1857-1917): 

Durkheim is regarded as the father of Sociology. He introduced the Scientific method in the study of society, laying the foundation of Sociology. This approach is referred to as the positivist approach. He has well brought out the link between human social consciousness and moral development. 

Study of Totemism: 

He held totemism to be the original form of all religions, he concluded that “the gods” where nothing more than the tribal society conceived symbolically. From this, he concluded that religious rites, worship and dogma were nothing but various ways and means to make people accept and submit themselves to the laws and customs of their closed tribal group. This same approach he also employed to morality, too. 

Moral laws, then, are nothing but positive laws enacted by a given society to ensure its stability and preservation. Thus, the norm of morality is plainly and simply concrete positive law. 

It would be more accurate to call it sociological positivism as it is grounded on human social, rather than individual or private, law.

Durkheim’s Criticism:

• Those who believe in universal moral laws do not admit that there seems to be a common underlying structure, some kind of common principles at work everywhere, that is the basis of the admitted diversity of moral set-ups. 
• The problem of Sociological perspectivism: If morality is primarily a matter of “following the crowd,” how do we account for the emergence of radical thinkers who openly and daringly rejected and challenged the existing mores of a given society?

Morris Ginsberg’s “On the Diversity of Morals” 

We’ve seen that there are certain problems with Moral absolutism. In this context, Morris Ginsberg threw light on the phenomenon of apparent ethical relativism in different cultures.

There can be Similarity in Cultures: Amidst variations moral codes everywhere exhibit striking similarities in essentials.

1. No society without rules of conduct, backed by general approval. 
2. None which do not regard that which contributes to the needs and survival of the group as good, 
3. None which do not condemn conduct interfering with the satisfaction of common needs and threatening the stability of social relations.

However, still, there are certain variations in cultures that make it

Moral Variations in six different contexts b/w and within certain nations & cultures:

• Applies to Whom: Variations in the view as to whom moral rules were held to be applicable. 

• Opinion Difference: So even if all cultures call a certain act to be evil, there may be differences of view as to what the ultimate reason we should do so: is to spurn all evil.

• Situation: Variations arising from the fact that the same act appears to be seen differently in different situations and contexts. 

• Subjectivism of good life: Variations arising due to a difference of emphasis on different elements comprising moral life. 

• Difference in Primary needs: Variations arising from the possibility of alternative ways of satisfying primary needs. 

• “first-order values”: People may agree as to what constitutes the most basic needs of humans, 

• “second-order values”: different societies and cultures seek to fulfil them in alternative ways.

• Level of Intellectual Development: Variations due to differences in moral insight & general level of ethical and Intellectual development. It may be gauged from 5 perspectives: 
• Degree of Universalism: does it apply to people of all nations, ethnic groups, cultures and religions and make no discrimination according to sex, age or religion?
• Comprehensiveness of experience in a particular moral code: such as guidelines for business, economic and inter-religious relationships; 
• Extent of Scrutiny: as to how justified they are and whether they have been made to fit together coherently and harmoniously; 
• The extent of separation of Moral law from religion: if no clear demarcation is made, the principles of the dominant religion will be taken as the basis of law and morality.  
• Tolerance for self-criticism and self-direction.

Moral Law

Moral law is neither a natural law nor a Positive law. It’s the immediate datum of the consciousness. There is then an element of moral ‘intuition’.  All ‘deontological’ theories agree that there must exist some rule or law which ‘enforces’ moral value and that it is natural to a human person, intuitively known; whether as ‘conscience’ (Ockham), ‘Logos’ (Stoics), ‘moral sense’ (Shaftesbury), the ‘a-priori categorical imperative’ (Kant), ‘right reason’ (Thomas Aquinas and Suarez).  In ‘teleological’ theories also element of moral ‘intuition’ is also found. Implicitly found in the concept of ‘eudemonia’ (Aristotle).  Explicitly in the concept of ‘right reason’ (Hobbes), and in the ‘conscientious feelings of mankind’ (Mill).

Consequentialism & Utilitarianism:  

Thomas Hobbes

• State of Nature: He gives a description of “man in the free state of nature”, that is before humans banded together to set up social structures and institutions. 
• Civil law: to be formed by the state.
  • The state would need to be invested with all power and authority so that none would dare to challenge it. 
  • Power is thus a necessary constituent of law. 

John Locke

John Locke wrote his Second Treatise to justify the interests and objectives of the new middle class and the struggle of people for liberty.

The objective is to achieve the “greatest good for the greatest number as the end result of human action”.

• Consequentialism: The only valid way to discern what is proper reason would be to view the consequences of any action and weigh the good and the bad
• Utilitarianism: Actions are determined on the basis of the utility of the action. 
  • Some believe it to be a more developed and overarching ethical theory of Kant’s belief in good will and not just some default cognitive process of humans.
  • Where Kant would argue that reason can only be used properly by good will, Mill would say that the only way to universally create fair laws and systems would be to step back to the consequences, whereby Kant’s ethical theories become based around the ultimate good – utility.

Jeremy Bentham (1748)

According to Bentham, the perspective of individual utility-seeking is the basis of ethics, as society is made up of individuals.

• A “good” law is one in which “utility” is affected resulting in pleasure or happiness to the party whose interest is concerned. Maximization of happiness should be the chief human motive in decision-making. 
  • Happiness: production of pleasure or privation of pain. Here he is not speaking merely of sensual pleasure but also that which arises from intellectual study and benevolent.
• Most human beings, however, do not know precisely how to apply this standard in daily life. To this end, he offers “a felicific calculus” as a guideline for the common man in his decision-making process.

• First, one should choose that action which would bring about the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of persons for the longest stretch of time. 

• He then proposes seven norms to help one in making such a measurement. It is all a matter of focusing on the pleasure concerned and checking out its: 

• intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, 

• fecundity (its capacity to include other pleasurable sensations), 

• purity (its freedom from any admixture of unpleasant sensations) and 

• inclusiveness (the number of people affected by it). 

• Bentham widened the meaning of pleasure to involve certain altruistic and “unselfish” elements. Be that as it may, the stress he put on the quantitative dimension of pleasure almost “begs for a misunderstanding”.

Criticism: Bentham’s statement that “Quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry“, i.e. his inability to distinguish between types of pleasure is criticized by JS Mill.

JS Mill (1860-1873): 

JS Mill propounded the idea of Utilitarianism; He was the author of a treatise entitled, Utilitarianism. Mill was even more direct and explicit than Bentham in holding that “utility” or “the greatest happiness principle” should be “the foundation of morals”. 

Mill redefines the definition of happiness as; “the ultimate end, for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence as free as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments”.

His additions:

1. He seemed to widen his criterion to involve not just “the happiness of mankind, but “rather, of all sentient beings”.
2. Mill distinguishes between happiness and contentment, claiming that the former is of higher value than the latter, a belief wittily encapsulated in the statement that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Refinement and precision to Bentham’s initial approach:

• He stressed that there is also a qualitative difference between pleasures and not just a quantitative one. 

• Mill defines the difference between higher and lower forms of pleasure with the principle that those who have experienced both tend to prefer one over the other.

• • • “Simple Pleasures” like hopscotch (a child’s game) cause more pleasure to more people than a night at the opera house, But it is because they have no true experience with high art, and are therefore not in a proper position to judge.
    • Thus, a doctor has more utility than a joker.

• He suggested that what the individual seeks is not his personal or private happiness but the common happiness of all. He even endeavours to give a rational basis to the pleasure principle by appealing to “the conscientious feelings of mankind”, that is, the fact that everybody would say so.

• The rejection of censorship and paternalism is intended to provide the necessary social conditions for the achievement of knowledge and the greatest ability for the greatest number to develop and exercise their deliberative and rational capacities.

Biggest Critique of Mill’s utilitarianism: “The greatest happiness of the greatest number” leads to Majoritarianism. How far can we be justified to sacrifice an individual for the sake of society? Could society be never wrong? 

Discourse Ethics

Jürgen Habermas is a German philosopher and sociologist in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. His writings: Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action 1990, and Justification and Application, 1993, have elaborated and modified the theory of Discourse Ethics. 

He takes the concepts of justice & concept of right and wrong as fundamental moral categories. He prefers to call it a ‘discourse theory of morality’.

He has the following approach towards ethics:

• Practical approach: Philosophy should seek to reveal the significance that can be found in everyday experience and articulate elements of universal significance in a way that is sensitive and open to the validation potential of empirical science. 
  • For example, for organ donation, what should be the correct criteria to select the most suitable recipient? What should be the criteria to select a person for the scholarship? Which businesses should be taxed more than others? These are the problems of real society, which must be answered by ethics. The discourse of Ethics must not live in the hypothetical world.
• Beyond Speculation: Rather than seek a post-metaphysical resolution to the modern conflict of ethical life, philosophy should rather act as a ‘stand-in’ for the empirical sciences and search for theories with “strong universalistic claims”. 
  • In recent years, he has engaged in a vigorous debate with French post-structuralists, e.g. Foucault and Lyotard arguing that their radical rejection of any notion of foundations destroys the very possibility of social critique. He holds that polycentric societies comprised of different ethical perspectives inevitably prompt disputes over societal norms. 
  • Participative democracy v/s Spectator Politics: Habermas characterizes some issues as distinctly ‘moral’, which requires participants to enter a ‘post-conventional’ level of moral consciousness.

Three general features of Discourse Ethics

• Questions of Morality: The questions of morality are differentiated from the questions of prudence/good life because they are answered from the standpoint of universalizability.

• Function of Discourse ethics: to justify norms that will determine the legitimate opportunities for the satisfaction of needs. Discourse ethics does, however, involve a moral-transformative process in which a participant’s understanding of his needs is changed. It deals primarily with questions of institutional justice.

• It is a Proceduralist Ethics. It does not offer any substantive theory of goodness or principles of justice. Rather, it provides a procedure that ought to be followed in determining the validity of a norm. In other words, it tells us how the practical discourse which seeks to adjudicate between conflicting norms ought to be conducted. 

• It is important to understand that Habermas sees the principle of universalizability as a rule of argumentation that belongs to the logic of practical discourse which enables moral actors to generate rational consensus whenever the validity of a normative claim is in dispute.

• The Discourse is actual, and not merely hypothetical. It is something that is carried out by real people. We need to consider the idea that we are a person; If I am not comfortable with something then, others should be empathetic and rational towards us.

Self-Actualization

Another factor that determines human action, as well as human morals, is the aims of life that give a sense of fulfilment to each individual. 

In this context, Maslow identified 15 characteristics of a self-actualised person. 

For example: enjoyment of new experiences, sense of humour, close friendships, creativity etc. It is not necessary to display all 15 characteristics to become self-actualised, and not only self-actualised people will display them. 

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs:

Maslow did not equate self-actualization with perfection. Self-actualization merely involves achieving one’s potential. Thus, someone can be silly, wasteful, vain and impolite, and still self-actualise.

FAQs related to Ethics in Western Philosophy