Philosophy 148 Moral Arguments

The first of many distinctions: Descriptive (what the text calls ‘non-moral’) versus Normative (what the text calls ‘moral’) claims : Descriptive statements are statements of the way thing are, while normative statements are statements about the way things ought to be. Certainly there are many opinions about what is considered morally correct versus morally incorrect, but the fact that some, or even most, are of a certain opinion is only descriptive, and not normative. We will examine prevailing attitudes, but we will keep in mind that the popularity of a view is no evidence of its normative truth.

Two non-starters in terms of theories about ethics: Subjectivism: The idea that morality is subjective Cultural Relativism: The idea that morality is relative to cultures or societies

Subjectivism disambiguated: Descriptive: “As a matter of fact, different persons have different ideas about morality” This is true, but so obviously true that its truth is not very interesting. Normative: “Morality is determined by what each person thinks about it” This is internally inconsistent, and also comes with the notion that everybody is by definition morally infallible. That is, it is so obviously false that its falsity is not very interesting.

Relativism disambiguated: Descriptive “As a matter of fact, different cultures have different ideas about morality” This is true, but so obviously true that its truth is not very interesting. Normative “Morality is determined by what each culture thinks about it” This is internally inconsistent, and also comes with the notion that every culture is by definition morally infallible (that means no moral progress, no moral reformers). That is, it is so obviously false that its falsity is not very interesting.

Moral Facts To take morality seriously as a concept at all, it is necessary to accept that there are moral facts. This does not necessarily mean that everybody will ever agree about what the moral facts are or how they are best discovered. Moral facts might plausibly take the form of: – Facts about human well-being – Facts about total pleasure/pain – Facts about the outcomes of rational procedures – Facts about personal character

Moral Arguments Moral arguments are deductive arguments like any other except that at least one premise contains normative language and the conclusion does as well. Often specific cases are applied to general normative principles.

Some common normative principles: Personal Benefit: It is good to benefit oneself Benevolence: it is good to benefit others Harm: it is bad to harm self or others Honesty: it is wrong to be dishonest Lawfulness: it is right to obey the law Autonomy: it is right to respect the dignity of rational beings Justice: it is wrong to give people what they do not deserve or to withhold what they do deserve. Rights: it is wrong to violate a legitimate claim to a moral good

Prima facie principles: The principles on the previous slide are “prima facie” principles in that they are: – Not absolute (they sometimes may be overridden by greater moral concerns) – Prone to conflict with one another (in which case one must determine which is of most importance) – Incomplete (other principles may plausibly exist)

Utilitarianism: Is a theory about what makes certain actions right or wrong. In a nutshell: Actions are right insofar as they produce the best overall consequences, and wrong otherwise This leaves open the question of what is ‘best’ or how to determine that.

What is ‘good’? Intrinsic value – These things have value in and of themselves – Examples: Happiness, Pleasure, (Knowledge?), (Virtue?) Instrumental (Extrinsic) value – These things are valuable as a means to something else. – Examples: money, exercise, property, (liberty?), (justice?)

Utility The Utilitarian will determine what course of action to take based on what provides the greatest Utility, or in other words, what provides the most intrinsic value.

A Model: Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus: Intensity: How intense is the pleasure that will result from the action? Duration: How long will the pleasure last? Certainty: How likely is the pleasure to occur or not occur as the result of the action? Propinquity: Is this pleasure close at hand or a long way off? Fecundity: Is this action likely to allow more pleasure later or less? Purity: Will this action produce only pleasure, or a mix of pleasure and pain? Extent: How many subjects are affected?

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Time – As you can see from the previous slide, a full utilitarian analysis could be a lengthy and involved process. Many decisions do not allow us that time. What do we do then? Inconsistency – It is imaginable that on one occasion, telling the truth would yield the best overall consequences, while on another occasion, lying might bring about the best overall consequences. So is lying right or wrong? Uncertainty – It seems like Utilitarianism is at most asking us to predict the future, and at least asking us to make reasonable guesses about future consequences. What if we just don’t know?

Some Utilitarian Responses: Time – Most decisions are easy and obvious. Many others are quickly enough made with brief thought, still others do allow time for extended thought. For those issues requiring time that is not available, we must hope our moral habits are good enough. Inconsistency – One theory’s inconsistency is another theory’s flexibility. To some extent we want our moral theories to be able to consider actions taken in different circumstances in different ways. Uncertainty – It is true that some are better at anticipating consequences than others, however, nobody is excused from attempting to do so. People are often held responsible for outcomes they did not intend. This is less a problem with utilitarianism than a problem with reality.

The root of the word ‘deontology’ The word ‘deontology’ comes from pair of Greek words meaning ‘the study of duties’. The core idea of deontological moral theories is accurately represented by the name. Deontology is the study of what moral duties we have, and on what basis we have these duties.

Motivations for Deontology A few plausible ideas about morality motivate some to turn to deontological ethical systems: – Sometimes the moral action is not one that creates the most happiness. – Moral rules should be equally applicable to all. – One should know what is moral before they act, not after; that is, people should not be subject to moral luck. – Ethics must have some room for reciprocity and universal human rights.

Kant and Deontology Deontology is typically synonymous with Kantian Ethics (based on the writing of Immanuel Kant), primarily because Kant did the first really good job of identifying the most relevant features of deontological ethics. In this course I would like to avoid some of the particular idiosyncrasies of Kant’s thinking and writing (as his writing is notoriously difficult) in favor of focusing on the general ideas contained therein.

Some Deontological Methods Method of Reciprocity: The basic idea is that you should not behave in a way that you could not want everyone else to behave. Method of Respect for Autonomy: People as rational beings deserve to have their rationality respected, so never use anyone as a means only.

Notable features of Deontology Preserves notions of supererogatory behavior (stuff that is morally praiseworthy, but not morally required) Establishes a set of inviolable and universal moral rules (how big or small that set is is a matter of some dispute).

Deontology and Rights All ideas of universal and inviolable human rights have a deontological basis. This is all the more clear when it is considered that every right comes with a corresponding duty. Consider the following:

Two kinds of rights Positive rights These are rights that come with a corresponding duty of others to do something for the right-holder. Examples: Education (others are duty-bound to provide education for you), Due Process, Health Care Negative rights These are rights that come with a duty of others to refrain from doing something to the right- holder. Examples: Life (others are duty-bound not to kill you), Property, Various Freedoms