Download Notes on Rachels, PFP, chapters 11-13

PHILOSOPHY 100
(Ted Stolze)
Notes on James Rachels,
Problems from Philosophy
Chapter Eleven:
The Objectivity of Ethics
Thrasymachus’s Challenge to Socrates
“[P]eople believe in right and wrong only because they
are taught to obey the rules of their society. These
rules, however, are merely human inventions.
Thrasymachus added that the rules of a society will
protect the interests of the society’s most powerful
members. So when ordinary people think they must ‘do
the right thing,’ they are just being played” (pp. 139-40).
One Argument for
Ethical Relativism
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective right
and wrong. Where ethics is concerned, the standards
of the different societies are all that exist.
A Second Argument for
Ethical Relativism
1. If we are to be justified in saying that the practices of
another society are wrong, then there must be some
standard of right and wrong, to which we can appeal.
The standard to which we appeal must be culture
neutral.
2. But there are no culture-neutral moral standards. All
standards are relative to some society or other.
3. Therefore, we cannot be justified in saying that the
practices of another society are wrong.
Two Case Studies for Moral Reflection
1. Living Under Drones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMOzvmgVhc&feature
=youtube_gdata_player
2. Abandon the Knife:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WONb6b6Yf08
A Needs-Based Argument
for the Objectivity of Ethics (*)
1. All human beings have basic needs (e.g., to food,
clothing, shelter, and a stable climate).
2. These basic needs can be objectively identified and
measured.
3. Whatever can be objectively identified and measured
can provide a culture-neutral standard of right and
wrong.
4. If we are to be justified in saying that the practices of
another society are wrong, then there must be some
standard of right and wrong, to which we can appeal.
5. Therefore, we are justified in saying that the practices
of another society are wrong.
(*) Not covered in Rachels
Another Case Study: Rachel’s Wells
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXpkBJ5r0Qg
Three More Arguments
against the Objectivity of Ethics
•
The argument from disagreement
•
The argument from lack of proof
•
The metaphysical argument
The Argument from Disagreement
1. In ethics there
disagreement.
is
widespread
and
persistent
2. The best explanation of this situation is that there is
no objective truth in ethics.
3. Therefore, we may conclude, at least tentatively, that
there is no objective truth in ethics.
The Argument from Lack of Proof
1. If there were any such thing as objective truth in
ethics, it should be possible to prove which ethical
opinions are true.
2. But it is not possible to prove an ethical opinion to be
true.
3. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth in
ethics.
The Metaphysical Argument
1. There are objective truths in science because there is
an objective reality—the physical world—which
science describes.
2. But there is no moral reality comparable to the reality
of the physical world. There is nothing “there” for
ethics to describe.
3. Therefore, there are no objective truths in ethics.
A Final Criticism of Relativism:
The Evolution of Morality
Primatologist Frans de Waal has identified the following
basic features involved in the emergence of “morality from
the bottom up”:
•
Empathy and Consolation
•
Pro-social Tendencies
•
Reciprocity and Fairness
www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
Chapter Twelve:
Why Should We Be Moral?
The Ring of Gyges Thought
Experiment
Glaucon’s philosophical point: immoral behavior can
sometimes be to one’s advantage (but Socrates/Plato
disagrees). So why should we care about doing what
is right?
Three Reasons to Be Moral
•
Religion
•
Social Contract
•
Utilitarianism
Two Types of Religious Ethics
• Divine-command theory
• “God rewards virtue” theory
Objections to Religious Ethics
•
Multiple traditions
•
Multiple interpretations of sacred texts
•
Religious texts can be interpreted in nonreligious ways
(ex: The Parable of the “Good Samaritan”)
Ethics Based on a Social Contract
Morality = “the set of rules that rational people will
agree to obey, for their mutual benefit, provided that
other people will obey them as well” (p. 158)
Objections to the Social Contract
•
Problem of “free riders”
•
Problem of dependent persons
•
Problem of global justice
•
Problem of other species
Utilitarianism
The Principle of Utility:
“ We should always do
whatever will produce the greatest possible benefit for
everyone who will be affected by our action” (p. 160).
Objections to Utilitarianism
•
Subverts conventional morality and moral rules
•
Strict impartiality is too demanding
Chapter Thirteen:
The Meaning of Life
A Thought Experiment:
The Experience Machine
“Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any
experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your
brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or
making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be
floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into
this machine for life, preprogramming your life’s experiences? If you are
worried about missing out on desirable experiences, we can suppose that
business enterprises have researched thoroughly the lives of many others.
You can pick and choose from their large library or smorgasbord of such
experiences, selecting your life’s experiences for, say, the next two years.
After two years have passed, you will have ten minutes or ten hours out of the
tank, to select the experiences of your next two years. Of course, while in the
tank you won’t know that you’re there; you’ll think it’s all actually happening.
Others can also plug in to have the experiences they want, so there’s no need
to stay unplugged to serve them. (Ignore problems such as who will service
the machines if everyone plugs in.) Would you plug in?” (From Robert
Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 42. NY: Basic Books, 1974.)
The Philosophical Problem of Death
What attitude should we take toward death? Is death
something to be feared? Does the fact that I’m going
to die make my life meaningless?
Three Religious Arguments for a
Meaningful Life
•
God has a plan for us.
•
We are the objects of God’s love.
•
Human life is a permanent feature of the universe:
death is overcome.
Epicurus on Life, Death, and Happiness
Epicurus (341 BCE-270 BCE) was an ancient
Greek materialist philosopher. He is said to have
written over 300 works, but only a few fragments and
letters have survived. For Epicurus, the purpose of
philosophy was to attain a happy, peaceful, selfsufficient life, in which one has overcome pain and
fear, and is surrounded by friends. He taught that
only pleasure and pain are the measures of what is
good and bad, that the soul is corporeal, that death
is the end of both the body and the soul and should
therefore not be feared, that the gods neither reward
nor punish humans, that the universe is infinite and
eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately
based on the motions and interactions of “atoms”
moving in empty space or “void.” Epicurus was
often attacked for promoting the pursuit of pleasure,
but in fact he insisted on prudence regarding
physical desires.
Excerpt from Epicurus,
“Letter to Menoeceus”on Philosophy
“Let no one put off studying philosophy when he is young, nor when
old grow weary of its study. For no one is too young or too far past
his prime to achieve the health of his soul. The man who alleges that
he is not yet ready for philosophy or that the time has passed him by,
is like the man who says that he is either too young or too old for
happiness. Therefore, we should study philosophy both in youth and
in old age, so that we, though growing old, may be young in blessings
through the pleasant memory of what has been; and when young we
may be old as well, because we harbor no fear over what lies ahead.
We must, therefore, pursue the things that make for happiness,
seeing that when happiness is present, we have everything; but when
it is absent, we do everything to possess it.”
(All excerpts are from The Essential Epicurus, translated by Eugene O ’ Connor
[Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1993.)
Excerpt from Epicurus,
“Letter to Menoeceus”on Death
“Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every
good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of
sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to us
makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of time but
by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is nothing dreadful
in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing
terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man who says that he fears
death, not because it will cause pain when it arrives but because
anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble when it arrives is an idle
worry in anticipation. Death, therefore--the most dreadful of evils--is
nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever
death is present, we do not exist. It is nothing either to the living or the
dead, since it does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer are.”
Epicurus’ Argument about Death
1. Something can be bad for you only if you exist.
2. When you are dead, you don’t exist.
3. Therefore, death can’t be bad for you.
Lucretius (~99BCE – ~55BCE) on
Death
“Look back upon the ages of time past
Eternal, before we were born, and see
That they have been nothing to us, nothing at all.
This is the mirror nature holds for us
To show the face of time to come, when we
At last are dead. Is there in this for us
Anything horrible? Is there anything sad?
Is it not more free from care than any sleep?”
(From Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, translated by Ronald
Melville [New York: Oxford, 1997, Book III, lines 972-977)
Lucretius’ Argument
1. My situation before birth was a kind of nonexistence.
2. My situation after death will also be a kind of
nonexistence.
3. Similar situations warrant similar attitudes.
4. Therefore, my situations before birth and after death
warrant similar attitudes.
5. My situation before birth does not warrant fear.
6. Therefore, my situation after death does not warrant
fear.
Objections to Lucretius
•
My situation after death is quite different than it is
before being born; in only the former case am I really
deprived of something—like having had your car stolen
(as opposed to not yet owning it).
•
Fear is future-directed; I cannot fear something after it
has occurred—you can be afraid of failing a exam next
week but not of having already failed an exam last
week.
•
We should fear both our situation before being born
and after we have died.
Epicurus’s Three Requirements
for a Happy Life
•
Friends
•
Freedom/Self-Sufficiency
•
Analyzed Life
The Ecology of Happiness
British statistician Nic Marks has developed an objective
and universal measure for what he calls the Happy Planet
Index:
www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.ht
ml
Nic Marks on Five Ways to Wellbeing
•
Connect…
•
Be active…
•
Take notice…
•
Keep learning…
•
Give…
Rachels on the Nature of Happiness
•
Non-religious people can
have meaningful lives and
be happy.
•
Happiness is not a goal or
final state but a process or
activity.
•
Happiness arises from the
pursuit of ordinary activities.