Download Ethics Lesson 1 - The Engquist Teachers

Ethics Lesson 1
Pages 363-369
Table of Contents
[Lesson 1 – Ethics]
• Quotes p. 363
• Introduction p. 364
• Moral reasoning p. 365-367
– A simple model p. 365
– Consistency p. 366
– Facts p. 366
– Disagreements about moral principles p.367
• Moral relativism p. 367-371
– Arguments for moral relativism p.367-370
• The diversity argument p. 367-368
• The lack of foundations argument p. 368-369
Quotes
• Notebook exercise
– Read the quotes on p. 363
– Select two quotes you love
– Select two quotes you hate
– Share your choices with a partner
Introduction
• We are different from other organisms (animals
etc.) because we think about ethics.
• Ethics – the moral study of right and wrong
• Examples of ethical questions:
– Is abortion ever justified?
– Should drugs be legalized?
– Are their limits to free speech?
– Do we have a right to privacy?
– Is there such a thing as a just war?
– Is child labor ever an acceptable practice?
Introduction
(Continued)
– We will look at the nature of moral reasoning.
• How is it similar to other Areas of Knowledge?
• How is it different from other Areas of Knowledge?
• (Remember other AoK in the book are at least math, natural
sciences, human sciences, history, the arts, and religion)
– Moral questions DO NOT HAVE ANY EASY ANSWERS
– We will look at 2 things that are threats (enemies) to the
study of ethics:
• Moral relativism – there is no such thing as moral knowledge
because we cannot judge who is right and who is wrong.
• Self-interest theory – if moral knowledge exists, we have no way
of doing anything about it because people are always selfish.
Moral reasoning
– People who think moral knowledge doesn’t exist
usually feel that morals are simple.
– Such people believe that matters of “right” and
“wrong” are the same as tastes in food.
– Yet this reasoning is not sound.
– Why?
Moral reasoning
(continued)
• Look at these two statements
– I like pizza
– She hates pizza
• Can these really be the same as these two statements?
– I think criminals should be executed (killed)
– She thinks criminals should never be executed.
•
•
•
•
These just CAN’T be equal comparisons!
The pizza example is a matter of judgment
The death penalty example is a matter of value judgment
The difference? We expect a person to have supporting
reasons or evidence to justify their opinion when it is a
value judgment.
• Normal judgments don’t require any deep explaining
usually.
A simple model
• Moral principle – the basis or foundation for a
value judgment
• If I agree with the death penalty, what is the
fundamental value (underlying principle) I am
using?
• If I disagree with killing criminals, what is my
underlying moral principle?
A simple model
(continued)
• A person who believes in the death penalty might
have a couple of different underlying moral
principles.
– Possibly this person believes that criminals should
deserve harsh punishments. The punishment should be
at least as bad (and maybe worse) than the crime.
– This person may also believe that justice should be strong
enough to discourage other criminals from breaking the
law.
– Perhaps this person is religious and is following a religious
code that says criminals should be executed. (example “An
eye for an eye” from The Bible which means that a person
should do the same punishment to somebody who did
something to them.)
A simple model
(continued 2)
• A person who believes that criminals should never
be executed might hold some of these fundamental
principles:
– Murder is always wrong. Even when killing a criminal it
would turn an innocent executioner into a murderer.
– A person can be punished more by spending their life in
prison. Living is more of a punishment than death.
– It is good for the living to be merciful because they will
not live a life filled with hatred.
– Perhaps a religious principle which does not allow
revenge or killing even when justified. (example 2 from
The Bible “Turn the other cheek when an enemy hits you
and allow your enemy to hit you again.)
A simple model
(continued 3)
• We look at two things when we argue ethical
questions:
1. Consistency in the judgments of the person we
disagree with.
2. Are the facts that the person we are arguing with
true?
Consistency
• Consistency – the idea that a person judges something in
the exact same way each time.
– Example: If Michael thinks the death penalty should always be
given to murderers, then he must also feel this is true if
somebody he loves commits murder (like his mother or wife).
• For consistency to exist, their cannot be exceptions or
special cases.
• Consistency is connected to the idea of impartiality.
• Impartial – showing no special favoritism to anyone when
applying judgment in a situation.
– Example: An impartial judge will look only at the facts when
determining a case. She will not judge the alleged murderer
based upon his clothing, attitude, friends, social status
(rich/poor), or anything else. She will only judge him using the
facts.
• Another word for impartial is objective.
Facts
• When we make a value judgment we rely on
facts.
• What facts do we need to know to make our own
value judgment on the following statement?
• Example: Rich people should pay more in taxes
to help poor people.
Facts
(continued)
• Rich people should pay more in taxes to help the impoverished. (poor)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
How will the tax money get to the poor people?
Is the government corrupt?
If the money gets to the people, how can we know that it will be helping
them?
How can we be sure that the impoverished are using the money for
appropriate things rather than drugs and alcohol?
What do we consider to be “appropriate things?”
How can we show that this money will eventually free people from the
chains of poverty?
Will the impoverished have to meet certain conditions or criteria to
determine if they can have money?
How will it be decided who is poor?
How will it be decided about who is rich?
How much is fair to take from the wealthy?
Is it morally correct to take money from some in order to help others?
How do we know that the impoverished deserve the money?
What proof exists that the poor are trying to get employment?
Disagreements about moral principles
• Simple model
Moral principle
Fact
Value-judgment
• We can settle most arguments about “right” and
“wrong” by simply looking at:
– Underlying principles (fundamental moral principles)
– Consistency
– Facts
• This seems easy enough however…..
• What happens when we don’t share the same
moral principles?
Moral relativism
• Definition (2 parts)
1. Our values are determined by the society we grow
up in. (nation, culture, religion, family, friends)
2. There are no universal values
• Examples:
– Some cultures allow marriage to more than one
person. Some strictly forbid it.
– Some societies allow people to wear less clothing.
Others societies expect people to fully cover their
bodies.
– Some groups allow the consumption (drinking) of
alcohol. Some think alcohol is evil.
Moral relativism
(continued)
• Universal values are values that everybody,
everywhere agrees upon.
• Can you think of any values shared by every
single one of the 7,000,000,000 people on this
planet?
Arguments for moral relativism
• There are 2 arguments that support the idea of
moral relativism.
The diversity argument
The lack of foundations
argument
Moral relativism
The diversity argument
• Because there are so many (thousands!)……
– Cultures
– Religions
– Ethnic groups
– Languages
– Communities
– Tribes
– Nations
– Traditions
It suggest there are no factual (objective) values
that can exist.
The diversity argument
(continued)
• Do you really think our cultural practices are all the same?
• Here is just a little evidence of this enormous variety!
1. Some cultures have eaten people.
2. Some mutilate (destroy or injure) their sexual organs
3. Some kill the servants and concubines of dead important
people so that these people may accompany them to the
afterlife
4. Some cultures have sacrificed people to their gods.
5. Some groups have killed the mentally/physically disabled.
6. Some have believed that all other groups are inferior and
should be killed.
7. Some cultures are allowed to kill those who cheat on
their spouse
The lack of foundations argument
• There is no fundamental basis for saying what is
“right” or “wrong.”
• If there were some truth existing separately from
the world, perhaps we could judge right and
wrong from that independent source of truth.
• Moral reasoning is extremely difficult because
logic doesn’t help us.
The lack of foundations argument
(continued)
• Consider these situations.
1. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The
humans should kill those who use too many resources.
2. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The
humans should do nothing.
3. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The
humans should eat the fattest humans.
4. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The
humans should sing a happy song.
• In terms of LOGIC AND REASON they are all identical!
That’s the problem!
• No statement above is more “logically correct” than
another.