Post on 30-Oct-2014
description
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
THE LIFEBOAT DILEMMA
In 1842 a ship struck an iceberg and sank. There were 30 survivors, crowded into a lifeboat designed to hold just 8. With the weather stormy and getting worse, it was obvious that many of the passengers would have to be thrown overboard or the boat would sink and everyone would drown. Imagine that you were the captain of the boat. Would you have people thrown over the side? If so, on what basis would you decide who would go? Age? Strength? Gender? Size? Survival skills? Friendships? Family?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY:How Subjective Are Your Ethics?
Keeping in mind the issues discussed in this section, how would you respond to someone making the following statements: In moral situations, you have to go with what feels right. What’s right for one person may be wrong for someone else. As long as you are being true to yourself, then you’re morally right.
In your own words, provide a clear definition of ethical subjectivism. What is attractive about this ethical theory? What are the fatal flaws that undermine the credibility of this approach?
Consider your own moral beliefs. What is the basis for your beliefs? Do any fall into the category of ethical subjectivism?
Which moral beliefs do you consider to be based on the needs and interests of others rather than simply your personal feelings?
Identify some moral beliefs that you consider to be self-evident, for instance, “All people are created equal,” and “Abusing children is wrong.” Then explain why you consider your examples to be self-evident.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ethics
Our English word ‘ethics’ comes from the Greek Ethos Which means character in the singular and
custom in the plural
Our word ‘moral’ comes from the Latin Moralis And was a translation of ethos So there is no difference between ethics and
morals
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ethics II
This naturally leads to two questions What is the nature of good/bad persons? What is the nature of good/bad actions?
These questions are not independent of each other Answering one will give us the answer to the
other If we know what a good person is then we know
what good actions are They are the actions a good person would
perform
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ethics III
Similarly if we know what a good action is then we know what a good person is A good person is one who performs good actions
The question, then, is which is more fundamental? Where should we start?
What we will see is that Ancient ethics is interested primarily in good persons While Modern ethics is interested primarily in
good actions
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ethics IV
There are three distinctions to be made here
Descriptive ethics: Describing what a group actually believes to be
right or wrong
Normative ethics: What ought to be the case, the way we should
live
Metaethics: Questions about the status of normative ethics
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Relativism
But there is an assumption here that needs to be dealt with The assumption is that there is an answer to
these questions
What if there is no such thing as a good person or action in the first place? If so then trying to give a theory about what
makes a person or action good would be a waste of time
So before we deal with particular moral theories we first need to address relativism
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Relativism II
Relativism is the view that there is no absolute moral truth Or alternatively that what counts as right or
wrong is relative to the individual (subjectivism) or to the culture (cultural relativism)
Some things really are relative Preference for chocolate or vanilla Fashion Humor Being large or ‘to the left of’
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Relativism III
So why think that relativism about morality is true? By far the most compelling argument for
relativism is what is called the cultural differences argument
This argument goes as follows 1.) If there were an absolute truth about morality
then cultures would not vary in their moral beliefs
2.) Cultures do vary in their moral beliefs Therefore, there is no absolute truth about
morality
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Refutation of Relativism
But this argument is no good Consider the following argument If there were an absolute truth about the shape
of the Earth then cultures would not vary in their beliefs about its shape
Cultures do vary in their shape beliefs Therefore, there is no absolute truth about the
shape of the Earth
Clearly, from the fact that people disagree about something it doesn’t follow that there is no truth
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism II
Here is another example If there is an absolute truth about the existence
of God then cultures would not vary in their beliefs
Cultures do vary in their beliefs Therefore there is no absolute truth about the
existence of God
This is clearly silly Either God exists or He doesn’t The fact that we disagree just shows that we
don’t know the truth
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism III
Not that there isn’t one to be known
The cultural differences argument gives us at best an epistemological conclusion; We don’t know the truth
Not a metaphysical one; There isn’t a truth
Of course, maybe relativism is true But the mere fact that people disagree doesn’t
show it
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Other Arguments
The cultural difference argument fails to establish relativism Are there any other arguments?
One argument starts from the challenge to find a foundation for moral commands What is it that makes a moral rule binding? This is a serious challenge but it is not decisive In order to meet this challenge we will have to
look at particular normative theories And we will do that soon enough
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Other Arguments II
Another argument points out that what a person should do is relative to the context they find themselves in So one might think that whether one should lie or not
depends on the situation Thus there is no absolute rule which specifies what a
person should do in every situation
But this is not relativism Relativism claims that in the same situation two
different actions are both equally acceptable So in the case where the murderer asks where you mom
is it is acceptable to lie but also not to lie That is very different!
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism IV
So the arguments for relativism are no good, what are the arguments against it?
First, if relativism were true we would not be able to say that any moral values are better or worse than any other We could not say that what Hitler did was really wrong Or that killing innocent people for fun is really wrong
But we do seem to make these kinds of judgments And moral absolutism provides a better explanation
for why we do so
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism V
Secondly there is a problem with determining who ‘the group’ is Cultural relativists want to say that what is morally right
is determined by the culture you come from
But what culture? The U.S.? Corporate culture? Hip-hop culture?
What about individuals who dissent with their culture? Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. Are they immoral?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism VI
Thirdly, there is a problem explaining change and disagreement If what is moral is simply what a culture thinks is moral
then why would a culture ever change? Usually we think happens because we made an error But according to the relativist there was no error
Also, when I am arguing with someone who thinks women should not be educated we don’t really disagree What I say is true relative to my culture and what they
say is true relative to theirs But it certainly seems like we are disagreeing
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism VII
Fourthly, take a case of seeming disagreement Eskimos sometimes leave children out on the ice to
die Is this a case where we disagree over whether
murder is wrong?
Arguably not A murder is an unjustified killing What we really disagree about is whether or not the
killing is justified That is, we are having a normative disagreement
that can only be settled by engaging in moral theorizing
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism VIII
In fact, some moral values must be universal Could there be a society that placed no value on their
children? No, because they would soon die out
Likewise, could there be a value that allowed any killing? No, for they too would soon die out
So there must be a set of universal moral values if there is to be a society at all What differs from society to society is normative
theories But then what we need to do is evaluate these theories
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refutation of Relativism IX
Finally, there is a logical problem Relativism is the claim that there is no absolute truth
about morality
But is this claim supposed to be true? It is a truth about morality, so is it relative? If so then it is uninteresting But if not then there is an absolute truth about morality
The basic flaw: Everything is relative except what I just said
So all in all, there is no reason to believe that relativism is true and many reason to think that it is false
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Metaethics vs Normative Ethics
The relativist is likely to respond that relativism is a metaethical claim about morality and not a normative claim It is the claim that all judgments of right and
wrong good and bad are relative to a culture
But this raises the same problem When we say that relativism is the right theory
we are making a normative claim
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Relativism and Tolerance
Many people are drawn to relativism because of a desire to be tolerant of other beliefs This is surely a good thing We ought not to assume that just because
someone else’s beliefs are different that they are wrong
But this doesn’t mean that morality is relative
Also, notice that the desire to be tolerant of other beliefs is inconsistent with relativism Someone who advances tolerance of other beliefs
is making an absolute normative claim
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing Stace’s Critique of Ethical Relativism
Imagine that you were engaged in a discussion with an ethical relativist. How would you use James’ and Stace’s criteria of “subjective satisfaction” and “rational explanation” to argue against their views?
Do you agree with Stace that if people became convinced that ethical relativism was indeed true, that this would gradually have the effect of eroding their moral values to what we generally think of as less sophisticated, less enlightened levels? Why or why not?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Egoism I
Egoism comes in two forms Psychological egoism Ethical egoism
Psychological egoism is the claim that Human Beings are built in such a way that they always act in their own self interest According to psychological egoism it is
impossible for people to act contrary to their own self interest
It is a descriptive claim
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
AYN RANDThe Virtue of Selfishness
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Egoism II
Ethical egoism holds that people can act contrary to their self interest But claims that they should not It is every person’s duty to act in their own self
interest
Usually it is held that a person should act in their rational self interest This means that it is not the case that ethical
egoism is an ‘anything goes’ view
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Social Contract Theory
Ethical egoists typically advance a version of social contract theory We begin with the assumption that psychological
egoism is true; people act in their own self interest Absent society (in the state of nature) every
person pursues his own self interest without any checks
As Hobbes says, it is a state of war In the state of nature there is no such thing as
good or bad, right or wrong It is simply take what you can and defend it as
long as you can
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Social Contract Theory II
But in this state of nature man lives in constant fear for his life Life is, as Hobbes says, ‘solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short’
In such a state of nature the self interested person realizes they have only one option They must give up their natural right to do
whatever they want and promise not to harm, steal, etc from others
This is the only way that they can truly maximize their self interest
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Social Contract Theory III
At that point they all enter in a contract with one another and morality is constructed Morality is not something that exists naturally It is built by Humans but none the less
universally applies to them because each Human is rational and self
interested and sees that this is the only way to maximize their interests
So we end up with the usual rules of morality It is just that they are derived from
considerations about self interest
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Arguments for Egoism
Is psychological egoism true? There are several two well known arguments for it
(1) No matter what a person does they are always doing what they really want to do Even if they are doing something that seems
unselfish they are only doing it because they want to Doing what one wants to is selfish So all actions are selfish
But this argument is bad We sometimes do things we don’t want to do (e.g.
keep a promise)
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
‘Want’ doesn’t equal ‘Selfish’
But as Rachels points out even if we grant that all actions are motivated by our wants We still don’t have an argument for egoism
What determines an act as being a self interested one is the object of the want If I want to keep my promise and this is the
reason I do some action It does not follow that I am acting from self-
interest The fact that I want to keep my promise shows
that I am not acting from self interest
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Second Argument for PE
(2) Actions that are allegedly not selfish always produce a sense of satisfaction in the person Breaking promises causes an uneasiness or
dissatisfaction So the person is ultimately acting out of self interest They are trying to avoid the uneasiness of promise
breaking And trying to gain the satisfaction of promise
keeping
Rachels objects to this argument Being unselfish just means deriving satisfaction from
helping others or keeping promises
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Refuting PE
Just as before, just because we gain some satisfaction doesn’t show that this is what we were trying to achieve
In fact unless I truly desire to help others I will not get any satisfaction out of it
And we have already seen that acting from that kind of desire doesn’t make the action self interested
It is the object of the desire that determines whether or not the desire is selfish
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
JAMES RACHELSThree Confusions of Psychological Egoism
Confusion 1: It is false to believe that “selfishness” means the same thing as “self-interest.”
Confusion 2: It is false to say that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives.
Confusion 3: It is false to assume that concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ethical Egoism
Rachels gives two arguments against ethical egoism First, it results in a kind of practical paradox The ethical egoist doesn’t seem to be able to advocate
his view
The egoist wants to maximize their self interest But the best way to do that is to live in a world where
everyone else doesn’t want to maximize their self interest
Secondly, ethical egoism is cold and calculating And as such doesn’t seem to even count as a moral
theory
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Another argument for EE
A frequent argument for ethical egoism takes its starting point from psychological egoism Suppose that PE is true Then people can not help but act in order to pursue
their self interest If I ought to do something then I should be able to
do it Ethical egoism is the only moral theory that would
satisfy the above So ethical egoism is the right moral theory
But as we have seen there are good reasons to reject PE
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Another Problem
Egoists like Hobbes often tout social contract theory as a way of getting all of the traditional rules of morality on a firm footing We should keep our promise, not murder, not cheat
and lie because it is in out self interest to do so
But there is an obvious problem The egoist does all of these things only because
they are in their self interest If they could get away with something immoral that
was in their self interest they should do so Ring of Gyges cases
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
THINKING CRITICALLYAnalyzing the Myth of Gyges (1)
Do you think that most people will break laws and violate traditional moral values if they’re confident that they won’t be caught? Identify one example that would support this thesis (for example, the looting that takes place during riots) and another example that contradicts it (returning a lost wallet that only you know you found).
When you hear about someone who could have cheated or lied for their own benefit but refused to, do you consider them, in Glaucon’s words, “a miserable fool”? Why or why not?
If you found yourself in possession of the Ring of Gyges, identify three “immoral” things you might do by making yourself invisible that you ordinarily wouldn’t do (for example, walking into a sold-out concert for which you couldn’t buy tickets).
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
THINKING CRITICALLYAnalyzing the Myth of Gyges (2)
Glaucon states that, “What people say is that to do wrong is, in itself, a desirable thing; on the other hand, it is not at all desirable to suffer wrong, and the harm to the sufferer outweighs the advantage to the doer.” Socrates believes just the opposite, stating that “It is better to suffer wickedness than to commit it,” and contending that doing wrong “will harm and corrupt that part of ourselves that is improved by just actions and destroyed by unjust actions.” Identify which viewpoint you believe makes most sense, and explain your reasons for believing so.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Final Problem
Social contract theory is offered as a way to explain how morality arises in a completely natural way But there is a deep problem
In the state of nature there is no right or wrong good or bad There are no moral obligations at all
But if this is the case then how is the social contract a morally binding contract? People make this contract in the state of nature,
where there is no morality
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
DCT
According to the Divine Command Theory the things which are good or right Are so because God has commanded us to do them
And the things which are bad or wrong Are so because God has commanded us not to do them
On this view rape, in and of its self, is neither good nor bad It only becomes so when God commands us not to do it
Similarly, keeping promises is not good until God commands us to do it
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Foundation?
This is one way of answering the challenge to provide a foundation for morality The commands of morality are rooted in the
commands of God
But the DCT faces a serious challenge First pointed out by Socrates in Plato’s dialogue
The Euthyphro
In that dialogue Euthyphro, a priest, is advocating a version of DCT Socrates asks him the following question
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Euthyphro Question
Does God command it because it is good? Or is it good because He commands it?
Both of these are compatible with the claim that the things that God commands are good But the order of dependence is different
If we opt for the first horn we are committed to the claim that the things which are good/right are so independently of God’s commands Of course, God is all-knowing and so He is in a
better position to recognize the good things
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
EQ II
But even so, if the good things are good independently of God’s commands then Knowing that God commands a certain action
does not tell us what is good about it We would still have to discover the nature of
good things or right actions
If we opt for the second horn then we are committed to the traditional Divine Command Theory The things which are good are so only because
God commands them
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Problem with DCT
So which of these is right? Does God command us to do the things which
are independently right Or does His command make these things right?
Socrates argues that there is a serious problem with the second (DCT) option If before God issues His commands nothing is
good/bad or right/wrong then God’s commands are completely arbitrary
There cannot be any reason that God commands one thing as opposed to another
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Problem with DCT II
If there were some reason that God used to justify His commands Then that reason would be the real foundation of
morality
So, if God forbids raping because it causes suffering or violates the autonomy of an individual Then causing suffering/violating autonomy seems to be
bad and God is just recognizing that fact
But if there is no reason for God’s commands the He could command anything It is just a fortunate accident that He forbids murder and
rape
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Problem with DCT II
If He decided tomorrow to command us to rape and torture Then, according to DCT, it would become moral
to do such things But this is a highly counter-intuitive result!
Most religious people think that God would not command us to rape or torture But this is to concede that rape and torture are
independently wrong
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Problem with DCT III
So either way of trying to avoid the problem is really just rejecting DCT If God has a reason for His commands then there is an
independent basis for morality If God would not command us to do certain things then
there is an independent basis for morality
So DCT seems false
What this shows is that religion and ethics are separable We do not need God to be moral We can discover the nature of good/bad, right/wrong on
our own
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
DISTURBING QUESTIONSabout Abraham’s Attempted Sacrifice of Isaac
How could Abraham (and others, by implication) be sure that it was the voice of God and not the voice of Satan or mental illness? This is what Jean-Paul Sartre refers to as “the anguish of Abraham.”
Because God is omniscient, and presumably knows precisely what is in Abraham’s heart and mind, why does he need to test his faith in this uniquely barbaric way?
What kind of God would command a believer to murder an innocent person, simply to demonstrate his uncritical willingness to follow His command without question?
How would you react to what seemed to be a divine command that violated your personal state of moral righteousness?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.Letter from a Birmingham Jail
“All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLYCan Morality be Learned in College (1)
According to Aristotle: The ultimate purpose in studying ethics is not as it is in other inquiries, the attainment of
theoretical knowledge; we are not conducting this inquiry in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, else there would be no advantage to studying it.
How would Robert Coles respond to this quote? How do you respond to the quote?
How do you explain the fact that morally evil people can be highly educated in terms of ethics and religion? In other words, how do you account for the “gap” that sometimes occurs between knowledge of ethics and being an ethical person?
If you were in Robert Coles’ position, what would have been your response to the student’s concerns regarding the disconnect between ethics and education?
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLYCan Morality be Learned in College (2)
If you were teaching a course in ethics, what would be your major goals for the course? For example, in addition to exposing students to the major ethical theories in philosophy, would you also want to encourage students to become more thoughtful and enlightened moral individuals?
Explain how the following thinkers would respond to the student’s concern that colleges do not teach students to become more ethical people: Ruth Benedict, Ayn Rand, James Rachels. Do you think that colleges should be responsible for helping students become more ethical individuals?