Download Note - Cara Gillis

Note: It’s often very useful to clarify loaded and/or ambiguous terminology. Since this is a class
on morality, understanding what philosophers mean and, more importantly, don’t mean by that
term is helpful.
Note: The Use-Mention Distinction: When a term is placed in quotation marks (or sometimes
when a term is italicized) the author is drawing your attention to that fact that he or she is
mentioning the term (as opposed to using it in a sentence). The upshot of this distinction is that
when a term is placed in quotation marks, the author is generally stating some about the word, not
merely using it in a sentence.
- ie:
o a) Cara has four letters.
o b) “Cara” has four letters.
The Definition of Morality
Main Goal: Gert is clarifying two distinct uses of “morality,” namely the descriptive and normative
uses. Although the two senses are fundamentally different, they both refer to guides to behaviour.
Upon finding that the descriptive sense fails to really capture how we use the term “morality, Gert
offers up a fully explained normative sense that attempts to encompass many of the attributes of
how we use the word.
The “Descriptive” Sense of “Morality”
- Used to refer to or describe an actual/existing code of conduct put forth by some society,
group, religion, or individual.
o IE: how people DO act
- Although we might often, perhaps loosely, use morality to simply refer to a code of
conduct, it’s important to note that it’s different than etiquette, law, and religion.
o Etiquette: might be contained within the scope of morality, but etiquette usually
pertains to behaviour that is less serious than the behaviour governed by morality.
 IE: Nose picking in public.
o Law: again, there is considerable overlap between law and morality, but law and
legal codes of conduct often have much more rigorous and definitive rules,
enforcements, and punishments than morality does.
 Ie: Stealing
o Religion: once again, there is considerable overlap, but religion offers much more
in the way of justification for behaviour (ie: supernatural beings, afterlife, etc.)
- An upshot of the descriptive sense of “morality” is that is permits for plurality in the content
of the moral codes.
o This sense doesn’t tell us anything about how moral codes should apply or what
they should require, so all it really does is identify different moral codes.
 IE: Abortion in Spain versus Japan
 “But, in this sense of “morality,” regardless of its content, or the justification
that those who accept the morality claim for it, the only universal features
that all moralities have is that they are put forward by a society and they
provide a guide for the behavior of the people in that society.”
 This sense of “morality” isn’t evaluative.
- Ethical Relativism (we’ll see more of this in the Shaw article)
o Morality is always descriptive and never universal.
 “Morality” always just refers to the different codes of conduct of different
societies.
- Tension: Since the descriptive sense of “morality” merely refers to codes of conduct put
forth by society to guide behaviour, what happens in heterogeneous or mixed societies?
o
-
-
IE: Religious moral code: abortion is always impermissible. Societal moral code:
there are conditions under which abortion is permissible.
 Now What?
Ambiguity: Two features of the descriptive sense of “morality” that will only emerge in
larger heterogeneous societies.
o 1) Morality is a code of conduct put forth by society.
o 2) Morality is a guide to behaviour for the members of that society.
o Issue: Is morality something that is put forth and endorsed by the society as a
group/set/entity? OR is morality a guide to behaviour that members of that society
will use to regulate their behaviour?
 As it stands, the descriptive account of morality can’t really give an answer
to this.
Possible Solution: Shift the focus from social groups to individuals.
o Assume that “morality” is the code of conduct that an individual will accept as her
overriding code of conduct.
 IE: regardless of my other desires, I will always act in accordance to my
moral code.
o Upshot: As a descriptive account, this interpretation allows me to describe an
individual’s morality without endorsing it.
 IE: The Passionate Vegan
 When we talk about morality, we aren’t always using in a descriptive sense. This is
especially evident when we make moral prescriptions or prohibitions. When I say
something like “morality requires that we ought not lie” the term “morality” once again
becomes ambiguous. Is it referring to
o 1) A guide to behaviour put forth by society?
o 1a) A guide to behaviour put forth by some other group?
o 1b) A guide to behaviour that I use as overriding for myself and wish others would
as well?
o 2) A universal guide to behaviour that all rational people would endorse as the
code to govern all behaviour?
-
Ethical Egoism (we’ll see more of this in the Rachels article)
o 1b is like ethical egoism: The promotion of my own self-interest is overriding guide
for my behaviour.
 IE: I ought to always do what promotes my self-interest.
o Tension: It seems like I must at least want everyone else to adopt this particular
code as well, but for ethical egoism to work, I’d need to not judge others badly for
failing to promote my self-interest instead of their own (even though I would like it if
they did).
The “Normative” Sense of “Morality”
- Used to refer to a code of conduct that all rational people would endorse.
o IE: how we SHOULD act
- “Normative morality” doesn’t need to refer to any existing moral code that’s accepted by
individuals; instead, the normative sense of “morality” refers to codes that rational people
would accept or endorse as guides for behaviour.
- Definite Content: under the descriptive sense, moral codes of conduct aren’t really that
different from other codes of conduct; however, under the normative sense, moral codes
must have some distinctive content.
o Notably: moral codes pertain to behaviour that affects others. (Kant exception)
-
-
 IE: DON’T kill, cause pain, lie, and break promises.
 IE: You SHOULD act charitably, but you won’t be punished if you don’t
We are skipping the particulars of Hobbes, Kant, and Mill since we will be addressing them
in depth later.
Public System: Gert thinks this is a key component of morality. It means that
o 1) Everyone to whom the guide to behaviour applies know what it requires and
permits
o 2) It’s not irrational to accept both the requirements and prohibitions/punishments
of that system
Rational Persons: the normative sense of “morality” refers to moral codes that ought to
govern the behaviour of rational persons. What is a rational person?
o
-
“This includes all normal adults with sufficient knowledge and intelligence to understand
what kinds of actions morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows,
and with sufficient volitional ability to use morality as a guide for their behavior. Such
persons must also seek to avoid any harm to themselves unless they believe that their
action will result in someone, themselves or others, avoiding a comparable harm, or gaining
a compensating good. People lacking these characteristics are not subject to moral
judgment. If they lack them only temporarily, they might be excused from moral judgments
in those cases.”
 AKA: Moral Agent
Gert’s Positive Definition:
o “Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that
affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.”
-
Concepts:
o Public System  see above
o Informal System  There aren’t absolute answers, especially to controversial
moral questions or problems. There also aren’t authoritative judges or strict
decision procedures.
o Governs Behaviour that Affects Others  Morality almost always focuses on codes
of conduct that pertain to how we ought to treat others. Again, the Kantian
exception comes into play here, and Gert assumes that this has some religious
motivations.
o Lessening of Evil or Harm as its Goal  Like the previous concept, this one has
some problems. We want to lessen harms, but what counts as a harm can be
tricky. IE: Is it harming the heroine addict when I refuse to give her heroine, even
though I have a ready supply of it and she if suffering both mentally and physically
from withdrawal? It’s pretty obvious that I should refrain from causing harm to
people, but does that mean I must do things to prevent harm? IE: Am I an
immoral person if I refuse to send my extra money to UNICEF and instead go to
Starbucks?
The Normative Sense is a Better Definition
- The normative sense of “morality” carries much more weight because it has implications
for how we should act. The normative definition of “morality” satisfies the requirements of
a definition more than the descriptive sense because it clarifies how the term is different
than other, similar terms and it explains why we use the word the way we do.