ES2.3 Some easy ethical approaches are questionable.

Students need to become aware of the differing grounds for ethical claims that have become common, and of the significant weaknesses of those often put forward in defense of an ethical choice. There are a variety of questionable naive approaches to ethical reasoning that are likely to lead the beginning ethical thinker astray:

• Naive Relativism. The belief that all moral choices are relative to the situation and the culture makes it easy to get along in polite conversation with others, since it requires no confrontations. However, when difficult choices have to be made, students need to realize that a truth can emerge that is not culturally specific.

• Naive Egoism. The simple belief that selfishness is the best guiding principle can make it convenient to ignore duty to others while concentrating only on personal profit. This approach conceals a fundamental inconsistency, since its naive form suggests that everyone else should still follow ethical forms.

• Naive Agency. Surrendering all moral authority by claiming to be a simple agent of some other entity (e.g. your employer) has its own clear problems. In the end, even the legal system requires individual responsibility, and military codes of conduct require soldiers to disobey some orders. Responsibility cannot be this easily dismissed.

• Naive Legalism. Equating ethicality with legality is a tempting way to dispense with serious ethical reflection. Students should certainly be aware of the legal issues that will confront them. However, assuming that "if it is legal, it is ethical" is asking more of the law than it can provide, and denies the legitimacy of principled disagreement with the law.

All of these simplistic approaches have significant flaws when used as reasons in ethical decision making. Students need guidance in recognizing these weaknesses.