Ethics and Anthropology

Concepts

The term ethics was first coined by the philosopher and physician Aristotle (384–322 BC), in his bookEthika Nikomacheia (ethics for his son Nikomachos). Ethics has its roots in the noun ethos, which means “custom.” Aristotle understood it as the rational study of custom which, methodically, as a practical science has not the exactness of the theoretical sciences. Today “ethics” is used in a manifold way. The public often uses the term synonymously with moral behavior:Someone is called ethical if they behave morally. In philosophy, ethics is synonymous with “moral philosophy” and deals with questions of how we can justify norms, distinguish “good” and “evil,” or develop consistent ethical theories. In Christian theology, ethics is synonymous with “moral theology,” reflecting the moral precepts of the Bible and the Church. The term anthropologyis ambiguous in a similar way. It covers a range from biological anthropology as well as cultural and social anthropology, to philosophical and theological anthropology, each with their different methodologies and scopes.

Let us focus on the fundamental anthropologicalethical question of whether or not there is free will, then turn to the important question of ethical relativism and some topics of professional ethics concerning social and cultural anthropologists.

The Question of Free Will

Neurobiological discoveries in combination with modern genetics have led some to the conviction that [Page 843]human beings are biological machines determined by the biological hardware, especially their brains and genes, combined with influences from outside. So there is no room for free will: The basket of motivations that move us may be fixed. We just do what we are determined to do. If ethics develops moral norms of what we ought to do, this seems to be contradicting the assumption that we are determined. We need the ability to act in accordance or disaccordance with the “ought,” not by determination, but by free will. Otherwise, the concept “ought” becomes meaningless.

There are different solutions to this problem. Philosophical anthropology often suggests a version of free will in terms of modular brain functions that is compatible with determinism. We are seen as a complex, determined, neurophysiological system. Data are taken in and alternatives generated and ranked. Eventually, an output initiates an action. This action is considered free, if the following is valid:

Theological anthropology often offers an incompatibilist version; that is, free will is not compatible with determinism. For strict Calvinists, for example, there is no freedom of (the) will. God predetermines what we do. The Roman Catholic Church explains freedom of the will by introducing an inner self, the soul. It is the soul that decides what to do. The question of how different thoughts are evaluated by the soul and why some act in accordance and some in disaccordance with the “ought” is answered by introducing the concepts of grace and sin and the mystery of evil.

...