Download Major Theories in Moral Philosophy

PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE
SPRING 2016
A Brief Overview of Major Theories
in Moral Philosophy
 Ethical Relativism: There are no universal moral values. Each culture is morally correct
in its own way.
 Psychological Egoism: Everybody is always acting from selfish motives; unselfishness is
impossible.
 Ethical Egoism: Everybody should always be selfish. Unselfishness is possible, but
foolish.
 Altruism: Everybody should always be unselfish and think of other people first.
 Utilitarianism: We should all try to maximize happiness and limit misery for as many as
possible, even animals.
 Kantian Deontology: We should always do what is right, according to the principle,
Could we want our action to become a universal moral law for everyone to follow?
 Virtue Ethics: Focus on developing a good character, enabling a person to make the
right decision based on character traits such as loyalty, honor, compassion, and courage.
 Debate between Free Will and Hard Determinism: do we have free choices, or are we
determined by nature and/or nurture?
 Existentialism: We always have free will, and we have to make choices without knowing
the results, which gives us anguish
The Adversarial
Method
 Method used in debates, including philosophical




debates.
Looking for the weak points in a theory, to either
improve the theory, or dismiss it
The weak points can be factual and/or logical
Paul Ricoeur’s advice: Don’t just use the adversarial
method to dismiss a theory. Listen and learn from the
theory, too.
So: pros and cons of the major ethical theories coming
up!
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
Theory: Values are unique to their culture. Each culture is morally
correct in its own way.
Major proponent:
Anthropologist Ruth Benedict
Pro:
 Allows for a live-and-let-live attitude between cultures while
respecting the values of ones own culture
Cons:
 Hopelessly confused about the boundaries of “cultures”
 Can’t account for righteous moral indignation
 Doesn’t consider the possibility that all cultures may have
common moral roots
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
Theory: Everybody is always acting from selfish motives; unselfishness is
impossible.
Major proponent: Thomas Hobbes
Pro:
 Has a neat explanation for everything!
Cons:
 Is counter-intuitive: sometimes actions seem very unselfish
 Is not logical: if all acts are selfish, aren’t some acts more selfish than
others? And if some acts are only selfish in the smallest possible way,
why would we even call them selfish?
 Is apparently false, according to evolutionary psychology: We are not
fundamentally selfish, but attuned to the social needs of our group.
ETHICAL EGOISM
Theory: Everybody should always be selfish. Unselfishness is
possible, but foolish.
Major proponents: Ayn Rand,
Thomas Hobbes
Pro:
 Makes looking after oneself a moral duty, so it liberates from bad
conscience.
Cons:
 Seems unfeeling and obnoxious!
 May be counterproductive: If everybody just looks after
themselves, there will be fierce competition
ALTRUISM
Theory: Everybody should always be unselfish and think of other
people first.
Major proponent: Various religions;
Emmanuel Levinas
Pro:
 An antidote to Ethical Egoism! Other people matter.
Cons:
 Is counter-intuitive: should other people really always matter
more than yourself?
 Only works if we can count on other people being willing to help
us, too: reciprocal altruism.
UTILITARIANISM
Theory: We should all try to maximize happiness and limit misery for as many as
possible, including animals.
Major proponents: Jeremy Bentham,
Peter Singer
Pros:
 Easy, basic premise: preventing suffering.
 Includes everyone’s happiness, including our own.
 Is very intuitive. We like the idea of trying to make as many people happy as
possible.
 We like the idea of animals being part of our moral universe
Cons:
 If a majority is made happy, then there will b e a minority that will be unhappy.
The few can legitimately be sacrificed for the many, regardless of the cause.
 There is no concept of right and wrong, except for what relates to overall
happiness.
KANT’S DEONTOLOGY
Theory: (1) We should always do what is right, according to the principle, Could
we want our action to become a universal moral law for everyone to follow?
(“The Categorical Imperative”)
(2) We should always treat other human beings with respect:
“Always treat yourself and others as an end-in-themselves,
never merely as means”
Major proponent: Immanuel Kant
Pros:
 One can always figure out what is the right thing to do. No shades of grey.
 Based on the notion that all people are rational and deserve respect.
Cons:
 Rigid, allows for no exceptions.
 Distinguishes between “persons” and “things.” Persons can think, things
cannot. And animals are “things.”
VIRTUE ETHICS
 Ethical relativism, psychological and ethical egoism, utilitarianism and
deontology all belong to the type of moral philosophy called Ethics of Conduct,
focusing on ”What to Do.”
 Virtue Ethics, going back to the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and
further back in time, focuses on developing a good character: “How to Be.”
 Virtues, which the Greeks thought of as habits of excellence, might include
loyalty, friendship, honor, honesty, compassion, reliability, gratitude, and
courage. The assumption is that one can, and should, take charge of one’s own
character and train oneself to becoming a good person, and will make right
decisions based on one’s good character.
 Socrates’s and Plato’s virtue theory is based on the notion of a balanced (just)
person, controlling his or her desires through their willpower, guided by their
reason.
 Aristotle’s virtue theory includes his theory of the Golden Mean, a virtuous
disposition between the vices of “too much” and “too little.”
What Happened to Virtue Ethics?
 Competing with Christianity’s focus on doing the right thing in




the eyes of God, virtue ethics faded away in the western tradition
of ethics, and ethics of conduct became the dominant form of
ethics.
In the late 20th Century virtue ethics was revived by British and
American philosophers, with much success, addressing the issue
of making decisions based on having a “good character.”
Pro: Allows for a more nuanced moral philosophy that takes
fundamental values into account.
Cons: Even if it can be established that a person has a good
character, it doesn’t necessarily mean that moral decisions are
easier. Moral dilemmas still require some thinking about“what
to do,” and depend on rules of conduct.
How would we decide who is right, if two equally virtuous people
disagree?
FREE WILL VS HARD DETERMINISM
 Hard determinism: Not only is there predictable causality
in the material world, but the human mind is also
predictable, and free will is an illusion. 100 percent
knowledge gives 100 % accuracy in predictions. Morally,
responsibility is difficult to place.
 Libertarianism: We are always free to choose, because the
human mind is not subject to the same natural laws as the
material world. So we have free will, and we are always
responsible for our actions and choices.
 Compatibilism: Sometimes we are responsible for our
choices, and sometimes we can’t help ourselves. As long as
our decisions are self-determined, they count as free.
EXISTENTIALISM
Theory: Humans have a special kind of existence, and a special moral duty to
exercise our free will
 As self-aware human beings (“for-itself”) we always have a choice, contrary to
things and animals who just exist (“in-itself”)
 Free will gives us anxiety, because life is absurd, and we have no control over
the results of our choices, but choose we must. We are “condemned to be free.”
 If we pretend we don’t have to choose, we are in “bad faith.”
Pro: Wake-up call to take life seriously
Cons: No excuses are acceptable; animals are considered no more than things.
Major proponent:
 Jean-Paul Sartre
Applying Moral Theory to
Literature/Fiction
1.
We can look at whether a work of fiction (novel, shortstory, play, narrative videogame, television show, or
movie) overall promotes a certain value theory = the
authors/producers want their work to reflect a certain
moral stance. The story has a “message.”
2.
We can look at whether various moral theories are
reflected in different characters in the story, and which
characters are considered the “good guys” and which ones
the “bad guys.” The “good guys” represent the moral
values of the story. It doesn’t have to have a “message,”
but can explore different views and options.
Some Thinkers in Favor of Blending
Fiction and Philosophy:













Aristotle, philosopher (4th century B.C.E.)
Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (19th century)
Jean-Paul Sartre, philosopher and novelist (20th century)
Simone de Beauvoir, philosopher and novelist(20th century)
Albert Camus, novelist and philosopher (20th century)
Ayn Rand, philosopher and novelist (20th century)
Iris Murdoch, novelist (20th century)
John Steinbeck, novelist and philosopher (20th century)
Jorge Luis Borges, novelist (20th century)
Paul Ricoeur, philosopher (20th century)
Charles Johnson, philosopher and novelist (today)
Robert Pippin, philosopher (today)
Martha Nussbaum, philosopher(today)