Chaffee, 3e Chapter 8

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.
All rights
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
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. Whats right for one person may be wrong for someone else. As long as you are being true to yourself, then youre 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 Copyright your examples to be selfconsider 2011 Pearson
Education, Inc.All rights
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
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
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

good actions
While Modern ethics is interested primarily in
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
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
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
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
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 doesnt follow that there is no truth

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 doesnt The fact that we disagree just shows that we dont know the truth
Refutation of Relativism III

Not that there isnt one to be known The cultural differences argument gives us at
best an epistemological conclusion;

We dont know the truth
Not a metaphysical one; There isnt a truth Of course, maybe relativism is true But the mere fact that people disagree doesnt show it
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 Copyright 2011 Pearson this challenge we will Education, Inc.All rights have to look at particular normative
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 Copyright 2011 Pearson Relativism claims that inInc.All rights Education, the same
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 Copyright 2011 Pearson
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? Copyright 2011 Pearson

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 Copyright 2011 Pearson not be educated we dont really Education, Inc.All rights
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 2011 Pearson normative Copyright disagreement that can only berights Education, Inc.All settled
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 Copyright 2011 Pearson society at all

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:
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
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 elses beliefs are different that they are wrong But this doesnt mean that morality is relative
Also, notice that the desire to be
tolerant of otherCopyright is Pearson beliefs 2011 Education, Inc.All inconsistent with relativism rights
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Staces Critique of Ethical Relativism

Imagine that you were engaged in a discussion with an ethical
relativist. How would you use James and Staces 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?
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
AYN RAND The Virtue of Selfishness
Egoism II
Ethical egoism holds that people can act
contrary to their self interest

interest
But claims that they should not It is every persons duty to act in their own self
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
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 Copyright Pearson It is simply take Education, 2011 rights what you can and Inc.All
Social Contract Theory II

But in this state of nature man lives
in constant fear for his life

nasty, brutish, and short
Life is, as Hobbes says, solitary, poor,
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 2011 can truly Copyright they Pearson maximize their self interest rights Education, Inc.All
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
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 2011 Pearson Copyright
Want doesnt equal Selfish

But as Rachels points out even if we
grant that all actions are motivated by our wants

We still dont 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 Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights self-interest
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
Copyright 2011 Pearson objects Education, Inc.All rights to this argument
Refuting PE
Just as before, just because we
gain some satisfaction doesnt 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 doesnt make the action self interested It is the object of the desire that determines whether or not the desire is selfish
JAMES RACHELS Three 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 ones own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.
Ethical Egoism
Rachels gives two arguments
against ethical egoism
First, it results in a kind of practical
paradox The ethical egoist doesnt 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 doesnt want to maximize their self interest
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights ethical egoism is cold and
Secondly,
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 Copyright 2011 Pearson theory Education, Inc.All rights
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 Copyright 2011 Pearson away with something immoral that was in their self interest Education, Inc.All rights
THINKING CRITICALLY Analyzing the Myth of Gyges (1)

Do you think that most people will break laws and violate traditional
moral values if theyre confident that they wont 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 Glaucons 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 wouldnt do (for example, walking into a sold-out concert for which you couldnt buy tickets).
THINKING CRITICALLY Analyzing 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.
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?

Copyright People make this contract 2011 Pearson of in the state
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 2011 Pearson Copyright

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 Platos
dialogue The Euthyphro
In that dialogue Euthyphro, a priest,
is advocating a versionof DCT Copyright 2011 Pearson

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 Copyright 2011 Pearson independently of Gods commands Education, Inc.All rights
EQ II
But even so, if the good things are
good independently of Gods 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 Theory2011 Pearson Copyright

Education, Inc.All so only The things which are good arerights
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 Gods commands are completely Copyright 2011 Pearson arbitrary Education, Inc.All rights
The Problem with DCT II

If there were some reason that God
used to justify His commands

foundation of morality
Then that reason would be the real
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 2011 Gods Copyright for Pearson

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
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 2011 Pearson Copyright

We do not need Education,be moral God to Inc.All rights
DISTURBING QUESTIONS about Abrahams 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 Abrahams 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?
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.
THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY Can 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 students concerns regarding the disconnect between ethics and education?
THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY Can 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 students 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?

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 8

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 8

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.

THE LIFEBOAT DILEMMA

THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY: How Subjective Are Your Ethics?

respond to someone making the following statements:

In your own words, provide a clear definition of ethical subjectivism.

Ethos Which means character in the singular and

custom in the plural

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

Answering one will give us the answer to the

we know what a good person is

A good person is one who performs good actions

The question, then, is which is more

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

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

The assumption is that there is an answer to

or action in the first place?

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

Or alternatively that what counts as right or

wrong is relative to the individual (subjectivism) or to the culture (cultural relativism)

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

By far the most compelling argument for

relativism is what is called the cultural differences argument

The Refutation of Relativism

about something it doesnt follow that there is no truth

Refutation of Relativism III

best an epistemological conclusion;

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

fails to establish relativism

Are there any other arguments?

One argument starts from the

challenge to find a foundation for moral commands

what a person should do is relative to the context they find themselves in

We could not say that what Hitler did

determining who the group is

Cultural relativists want to say that what

is morally right is determined by the culture you come from

with their culture? Copyright 2011 Pearson

explaining change and disagreement

Also, when I am arguing with

Refutation of Relativism VII

Eskimos sometimes leave children out

Refutation of Relativism VIII

Could there be a society that placed no

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 Copyright 2011 Pearson society at all

It is a truth about morality, so is it

The basic flaw:

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

Metaethics vs Normative Ethics

relativism is a metaethical claim about morality and not a normative claim

wrong good and bad are relative to a culture

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.All rights

Relativism and Tolerance

because of a desire to be tolerant of other beliefs

Also, notice that the desire to be

READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Staces Critique of Ethical Relativism