Download
1 / 51
510 likes | 515 Vues
Explore the nature of moral judgments and whether they are objective truths or simply subjective feelings. Discuss various philosophical perspectives on ethics, including ethical naturalism, intuitionism, and emotivism.
E N D
Quick Write 7 min What do you mean when you say that an action is “wrong” or “right”? Are you referring to something objective in the world, or are you simply describing a feeling you have that has no truth value? Explain your answer and give examples.
The principal is alive. • It is morally wrong to set your friend’s little brother on fire for fun. • Are these sentences true? How do we know the first one is true? How do we know the second one is true? • What is the difference between these sentences? (We know what we mean by the property “is alive,” but what do we mean by the property “is morally wrong”? What is it that makes an act morally right or morally wrong? How do we test this?) • What do you mean when you say “morally wrong” or “morally right”?
Meta-Ethics • Meta-ethics is concerned with what we mean when we use words like ‘good’ ‘bad’ ‘right’ ‘wrong’. • It is not a normative system of ethics – its does not tell us what we can and can’t do
Background The philosopher David Hume was an empiricist: he argued that things can only be ‘real’ or ‘meaningful’ if they can be verified or proved by our five senses. e.g.: I know oranges exist because I have seen, smelt, touched and tasted them
Ethical Naturalism A branch of ethics called Ethical Naturalism developed from empiricism and the ideas of David Hume. These ethicists argued that we observe the world around us and create moral theories to fit our observations.
An Example… • If we could prove, empirically and provide proof, that women make better parents than men (i.e. if this was a fact) • Then we could argue that men should not be single parents. (moral judgement)
Is-Ought Gap • Many opponents of the naturalist position argue that we cannot make the leap between a FACT (is) and a MORAL JUDGEMENT (ought). • What might be wrong with this IS-Ought gap? With a partner, see if you can come up with an Is-Ought moral ethical judgment. This can be one that exists in society, or one you make up.
Intuitionism The philosopher G.E. Moore said we have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things. e.g. I don’t need to observe a murder to know that killing someone is wrong – I just know it is.
Simple vs. Complex Moore argued that there are simple and complex ideas. Complex= ‘horse’ can be broken down into animal, mammal, quadraped, equine. Simple = ‘yellow’ we can’t break it down any further.
Moral terms are simple ‘Good’ ‘Bad’ ‘Right’ ‘Wrong’ Are simple terms ‘Good’ is simply ‘good’.
Moral judgements cannot be proven Moore further argued that moral judgements cannot be proven empirically. We cannot observe pleasure and then say that goodness is pleasure. In groups of 3: what do you think of Moore’s ideas? Do you agree? Why/why not?
W.D. Ross - Intuitionism Ross accepted Moore’s version of ethics and also added that in any given situation moral duties or obligations become apparent. These are called prima facie duties. Prima facie means ‘at first appearance’ Does this align with your experience? When have you experienced this, if ever?
Prima Facie Duties • Ross listed the following as prima facie duties: Keeping a promise, reparation for harm done, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement and non-maleficence He acknowledged that this list might not be complete.
Emotivism A.J. Ayer was a Logical Positivist. He believed that meaningful statements had to be verified either synthetically or analytically otherwise they are meaningless.
Analytic Statements 1 + 1 = 2 All triangles have 3 sides All spinsters are unmarried women All of these statements are true in themselves – they are true by definition
Synthetic Statements It’s snowing There’s a squirrel in that tree That chair is brown These are all synthetic statements - they can be verified by our five senses.
So what are moral statements? Moral statements cannot be verified synthetically or analytically. Therefore they are not truths or facts. Moral statements are simply expressions of preference, attitude or feeling.
Emotivism – ‘boo’ ‘hurrah’ Moral statements come from our emotional responses to situations. When I say murder is wrong I am saying ‘murder – boooooooo!’ When I say giving to charity is good I am saying ‘charity - hurrrrrah!’ Do you agree with this description of “moral statements”? Why/why not?
C. L. Stevenson Stevenson added to Ayer’s theory by asserting that when we make moral statements we are not only expressing our emotional response to a situation but we are also trying to persuade others to have the same emotional response.
The Removal of Reason The removal of reason is one of the major criticisms of emotivism and intuitionism. James Rachels argues that it is wrong of Ayer to make a connection between the ‘ouch’ response when you stub your toe and the ‘that’s wrong’ reaction when you see details of a murder on the news. Do you agree? Why/Why not?
Prescriptivism • Moral statements are objective. They are prescriptive and universal The only way to act morally in any situation is to respond in a way that we would be prepared to say that EVERYONE should have to behave.
Meta-ethics How we use ethical language and where it comes from. Intuitionism Our intuition tells us what is right or wrong Emotivism What is right or wrong is simply an emotional response to a situation Prescriptivism When I say something is right I’m trying to get you to think the same A summary of meta-ethics…
Relevant Terms • Subjective Relativism (Subjectivism) —The view that right actions are those sanctioned by a person • Cultural Relativism (Conventionalism) —The view that right actions are those sanctioned by one’s culture • Moral Objectivism —The view that there are moral norms or principles that are valid or true for everyone • Louis Pojman argues against both forms of Relativism
Moral subjectivism • Ethics is all about opinions: based on individual beliefs • What is “right for you” might not be “right for me” • Ethics is nothing more than a matter of taste. • When I say X is “good”, all I mean is that I prefer X to Y: • Under moral subjectivism I can never say you “ought” to act any way other than you do. Similarly, I can never say you “ought” to hold any beliefs other than the ones you hold to be true.
Objections • Rejects Empirical Evidence: Subjectivism does not account for disagreement. If everything really is relative to the individual, why do we get worked up about ethical questions? Under the subjectivist account, ethical arguments should be no more heated than debates about ice cream. • Results in Ethical Infallibility: If ethics is a matter of taste, then no views can be considered wrong. Racism, sexism, etc. • Does this align with your experience?
Cultural relativism • Against subjectivism: The truth of an ethical claim rests not on individual preference, but on cultural norms. The “right thing to do” is that which adheres to the values of one’s culture. • The diversity thesis: Ethical standards differ from culture to culture • The dependency thesis: What is right and wrong is dependent upon, or relative to, culture • Therefore, there is no objective right and wrong. • Does this align with your experience?
The argument appears valid, and thus to defeat the conclusion Pojman will need to defeat at least one of the premises. • P1 is simply a statement of fact, and thus hard to overcome. Thus the weaker premise is P2. • The strength of P2 resides in the nature of the dependency implied by the premise, i.e. what degree of dependency does the relativist require to uphold the conclusion, and can sufficient fault be found to undermine the argument?
Strong vs. Weak Dependency • Weak Dependency - expressions of a moral belief X can differ across culture • Strong Dependency - the moral belief X itself can differ across culture • To make the argument stick, the relativist is going to have to claim strong dependence. Can you think of examples of ethical disagreement where the value is the same, but the expression of the value differs?
Objections to Cultural Relativism Before we look at some classic objections, try to come up with a few of your own.
For Pojman’s attack to be successful, he will have to show that both subjectivism and conventionalism are false. • Subjectivism leads to absurd conclusions - • 'morality' has no meaning • no interpersonal criticism is possible • Conventionalism collapses into Subjectivism - • How do we determine what a society/culture is? • How is reform possible within a conventionalist system? • No intercultural moral critique is possible. • In addition, relativism (in both forms) entails tolerance. If so, then relativism entails at least one objective moral value (tolerance). If so, then relativism is not true for all moral values.
Objection • But now consider the following sentence spoken by a Southern abolitionist before the Civil War: • My society approves of slavery, but I believe it is not morally permissible. • This sentence surely is not nonsense, indeed we would find the speaker to be praiseworthy. But if cultural relativism was true, then social approval would be the same thing as being morally permissible. That would mean that the above sentence would mean exactly the same thing as:Slavery is morally permissible, but I believe it is not morally permissible.
The Ambiguity of the words “right and wrong” • Legal/illegal: we have to see this as distinct from ethical language since the two can be at odds. • socially right and socially wrong: cultural norms • in pairs come up with acts that are morally permissible or necessary, but are, or at some time were, legally and/or socially wrong and acts that are morally impermissible, but are legally and/or socially right
HW • Read “Utilitarianism” chapter on the website
Utilitarianism/Bentham 1748-1832 • Human beings (though not only humans) experience pleasure and pain. This is the fact that underlies all of ethics. The way we act has consequences for others, that is, causes them pleasure or pain. The utility of an act is the net amount of pleasure and pain that it causes when we consider absolutely everyone affected. • Bentham contends that ethics is therefore based upon the Principle of Utility which is that one ought to always act to maximize overall utility. In other words, the morally correct action is that which brings the greatest balance of pleasure over pain when everyone affected is considered.
When applying the principle of utility, everyone counts equally. It doesn’t matter if you are the king or a servant, your pain or pleasure is considered equally. Not that degree is irrelevant. It is the amount of pain or pleasure that gets tallied, not whose it is. That includes non-humans as well. Since animals can feel pleasure and pain, their utility must be considered as well. • So, when trying to decide what to do, the utilitarian approach is to calculate the overall utility for all of the options – pain being considered negative pleasure. You then pick the option that has the greatest balance of pleasure over pain, that is the one with the best overall (or least worst) consequences. • Because the utilitarian locates moral acceptability or impermissibility in the consequences of an act and not the act itself, a significant result is that there cannot be blanket prohibitions of any category of action. One could always concoct some artificial example in which it would be outweighed by the consequences on the other side.
Discussion • Are there are any acts that are so heinous – slavery, torture – that they should be morally banned regardless of context? • Think about Sandel’s examples.
Bentham realizes that when calculating the amount of pleasure or pain, that there are several aspects to the experience that must be considered. Pain is not like a carton of eggs in which one could simply count up the number in the carton. One needs to consider the intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity. • Intensity is the measure of the strength of the feeling. Is something incredibly painful or just mildly uncomfortable? That difference needs to be considered. • Duration is a measure of how long the pleasure or pain lasts. Do you pull the band-aid off slowly causing a lower intensity of pain for longer or just rip it off causing a much more intense pain for just an instant and then it is over? • Certainty measures how likely the pleasure or pain is to occur. Because you are making your utilitarian calculation before the event, you cannot always be certain of the actual consequences. How probable is it that the pleasure or pain you are considering will actually occur?
Propinquity measures how close in time the pleasure or pain will be. Is it a case of immediate or delayed gratification? The further removed a pleasure or pain is from the event that causes it, the more likely it is for an intervening cause to affect it one way or the other. • Fecundity is a measure of the likelihood of something to give rise to more of the same. Is it a moral gift that keeps on giving, a joy that will put you in a place to experience even more joys or is it a permanent hurt that will give rise to other pains down the line? • Purity is the contrary notion that considers how likely a pleasure is to give rise to a later pain (you reap what you sow) or how likely a pain is to give rise to a later pleasure (no pain, no gain). • When you consider all of these factors together, you get a sense of the actual utility of an act for a person. When you tally it up for all people (and non-people) affected, you get the net or overall utility of the act. You then select from among all possible acts, the one that maximizes overall utility.
Mill’s Objection 1806-1873 • Hedonism is the view that pleasure and pain are the only measures relevant to the determination of the moral status of an action. • Mill argues that more intellectual pleasures are inherently more valuable than more physical bodily pleasures. It isn’t purely the amount, but the type of pleasure that matters. He writes, • “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. • “He says that smart people, those who have experienced both types will prefer the pleasures of the intellect, making them more valuable. Is this true? Are pleasures of the mind more valuable than pleasures of the body, or is this just the bias of a smart person?”
Liberty • Stresses individual rights: people should be free to do as they wish as long as it does not harm others. • This rests on utilitarian grounds. • We should maximize utility in the long run. Respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest happiness for several reasons: • The dissenting view could turn out to be true • Prevents dogma and prejudice • Ensures intellectual energy and vitality
Objections • Respecting individual rights as a means to progress rather than an ends in itself, does not ensure individual rights. • What if we come across a society that has achieved long term happiness by despotic means? The utilitarian could not condemn such a society.
Discussion • Choose one of Sandel’s examples and discuss as a group • Torture • The City of Happiness • Exploding Gas Tanks • Throwing Christians to the Lions Do you find the utilitarian argument compelling in these cases? Why/why not?
Act Vs. Rule • Act utilitarians focus on the effects of individual actions • rule utilitarians focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing). • Act utilitarians believe that whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the action that will create the greatest net utility. In their view, the principle of utility—do whatever will produce the best overall results—should be applied on a case by case basis. The right action in any situation is the one that yields more utility (i.e. creates more well-being) than other available actions.
Rule • Rule utilitarians adopt a two part view that stresses the importance of moral rules. According to rule utilitarians, a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and b) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules (or no rule at all). According to this perspective, we should judge the morality of individual actions by reference to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other possible rules.
Objections to AU • The most common argument against act utilitarianism is that it gives the wrong answers to moral questions. Critics say that it permits various actions that everyone knows are morally wrong. The following cases are among the commonly cited examples: • If a judge can prevent riots that will cause many deaths only by convicting an innocent person of a crime and imposing a severe punishment on that person, act utilitarianism implies that the judge should convict and punish the innocent person. • If a doctor can save five people from death by killing one healthy person and using that person’s organs for life-saving transplants, then act utilitarianism implies that the doctor should kill the one person to save five.
RU • Rule utilitarians say that they can avoid all these charges because they do not evaluate individual actions separately but instead support rules whose acceptance maximizes utility. To see the difference that their focus on rules makes, consider which rule would maximize utility: a) a rule that allows medical doctors to kill healthy patients so that they can use their organs for transplants that will save a larger number of patients who would die without these organs; or b) a rule that forbids doctors to remove the organs of healthy patients in order to benefit other patients. • Although more good may be done by killing the healthy patient in an individual case, it is unlikely that more overall good will be done by having a rule that allows this practice.
HW • Read Kant chapter on the website
