Download Class #9 - 8/5/10

Philosophy 1010
Class #9 - 8/5/2010
Title:
Instructor:
E-mail Address:
Introduction to Philosophy
Paul Dickey
[email protected]
Final Exam & Final Essays are due
Next week – 8/12/2010
Hints for Taking Final Exam
Re-read chapter summaries –
Chapters 1-4, 6 & 7
Practice Quia Activities! Don’t just memorize the
answers. Understand the questions & answers.
Review textbook, powerpoints, your lecture
notes as necessary to answer your questions.
Come relaxed but prepared to finish the exam
without a break!
When taking the exam, read the question and all
possible answers carefully before you decide which
answer is best.
Chapter 7
Ethics
Is Morality more of an issue about
character or conduct?
That is, does one do the right thing because
one has a virtuous character, or does one
have a virtuous character because they
consistently do the right thing?
Or, saying this another way, in studying ethics
should we focus on acts of conduct and
determine what makes an act moral, or
should we focus on virtue to determine what
makes a person good, such that guarantees
that her actions will be good.
Principles of Ethics
•
According to the first approach specifically, Ethics
investigates the problems and the questions that are
posed about values as they relate to human
conduct.
•
A value judgment is a choice between what is good or
bad. What is a good movie is a value judgment, but
not an ethical or moral judgment. It is an aesthetic
judgment.
•
Thus, all moral judgments are value judgments, but
there are many value judgments that are not moral
judgments.
Principles of Moral Reasoning
•
Please note that your view on whether God exists
or not is not an ethical judgment, but a view you
should allow God (assuming you believe in God)
to direct your conduct is an ethical judgment.
•
If you assert that God exists, that is a belief that is
either true or false, but not a value. If you believe
that God exists and that you should “follow his
commandments” (for example), then you have a
belief and a value. You have made a judgment
about what you should do in response to what you
believe is true or false.
•
In an argument, a value judgment is a normative
claim. A normative claim asserts what “ought to be”
or “if something is good” as opposed to “what is” (a
factual claim).
Moral Issues & Subjectivity
•
When addressing moral issues, the claims we
make and the premises we give often are
somewhat subjective. (Remember that if a claim
is totally subjective, no argument for it (or against
it) can be given.)
•
Always remember that to the extent the
premises for a claim are subjective, they
provide no support for your argument.
•
But morality is not generally thought to be a
mere matter of subjective opinion and it is
possible (although perhaps difficult) typically to
put forward reasons to believe a moral claim.
•
Furthermore, moral issues and moral judgments
are frequently too important to ignore or avoid.
Approaches to Morality:
Relativism & Subjectivism
•
Moral or ethical relativism is the view that what is right or
wrong depends upon one’s group or culture.
•
This claim is different than the claim of cultural relativism that
what is believed to be right or wrong depends upon one’s
group or culture. Be on guard for someone arguing for the first
claim but only supporting with premises and evidence the
second claim.
•
For a moral relativist, however, is abortion right or wrong in the
U.S. today? Presumably it depends if society thinks so, but
what to say when society is fundamentally divided on the
issue?
•
Moral subjectivism is the claim that all moral judgments are
subjective, that if one thinks something is right or wrong then it
is so for that person.
Moral relativism suggests that:
• There are multiple systems of
morality, and with possible
contradictions between them and
without any means to resolve their
differences.
• Thus, all moral systems should
respect the values inherent in other
systems
• Moral values are relative to time
and place.
What might be good or right about
moral relativism?
1.
Although it might not be the only way to foster tolerance
between cultures, it definitely does encourage tolerance
and teaches us to have restraint from imposing our
values on cultures that do not accept them.
2.
It often helps us to reduce bigotry and force us to expand
our own understanding beyond previously held, narrow
points of view.
3.
It seems to encourage psychological and sociological (i.e.
scientific) explanations of behavior that we did not
previously understand.
4.
It seems to help each of us engage our fellow humans
(who may be outside our “own group”) with more respect,
admiration, and appreciation.
5.
It recognizes that though we often think we make moral
judgments that are universal, in fact the values that we
relied on to make this argument was riddled with cultural
biases and values.
Argument for moral relativism:
P1. Ethical beliefs and practices differ profoundly
from one culture to another.
P2. We should respect and not judge the ethical beliefs
and practices of others (especially when they have
good reasons for their moral claims).
C. Therefore, the fundamental principles governing
what acts are morally right or wrong vary from
culture to culture.
Now, what are some problems
with moral or ethical relativism?
If moral relativism is true,
1.
then we would appear to have no basis to
criticize another culture for anything they
do, including slavery, the holocaust,
genocide.
2.
then it would appear that whatever the
majority of a culture wishes must be moral
and any attempt to improve the culture
(through civil rights, for example) is
actually immoral.
3.
then it would appear that what is moral is
how people behave, not how they say they
behave
Now, what are some problems
with moral or ethical relativism?
If moral relativism is true,
4.
then it would appear that actions become moral
or cease to be moral based on changing “polls.”
5.
then it would appear that acts become moral or
cease to be moral based on who you admit into
your “culture.” Does the U.S. have one culture
or many? Is culture a matter of ethnicity, religion,
or ???
6.
then it would appear that even the idea of
tolerance might not be a shared common value
7.
how would we ever know it to be true? (discuss
“problem of induction” or “proving a negative”)
One argument against moral relativism:
P1. Science once believed that the earth was flat and
thus by a principle of relativism applied to truth
similar to relativism applied to morals, we would
have concluded that at that time, the world was flat.
P2. The world is not flat and was not flat at any time.
C. Therefore, the relativistic viewpoint is fundamentally
flawed whether in terms of astronomy or ethics.
Just as the truth is not dependent upon what is
known at a given time, so morality is not dependent
upon one’s culture.
Approaches to Morality:
Absolutism
•
Though moral values are at times somewhat
subjective, not all moral values are entirely subjective.
Many moral values can be addressed at least partially
with objective principles and by fundamentals of critical
thinking.
•
The opposite of the moral relativist is the moral
absolutist who would argue that fundamentally only
one and only one correct morality exists. What is right
for Americans in the 20th century is what would have
been right for all nations throughout history.
•
Although this view may seem too strong to argue on
the basis of all moral judgments, it does seem
somewhat reasonable in regard to certain fundamental
moral judgments, e.g. slavery, pedophilia, etc.
Note that Moral (or Ethical) Relativism
and Universalism agree that:
• There is right and wrong and we can have agreed
upon standards of determining one from the other.
• All the following views are invalid:
a) Nihilism,
b) Skepticism,
c) Emotivism, or
d) Subjectivism,
none of which cannot provide any basis for common
ground in developing ethical guidelines.
Video:
Does Morality Depend Upon
One’s Culture?
(#18)
Approaches to Morality:
Utilitarianism
•
Utilitarianism is the view that what is right or wrong
depends upon the consequences of actions and
decisions.
•
The view is associated with the philosophers Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
•
According to this view, what is right is what will
produce the greatest value (perhaps happiness) for
the greatest number.
•
Intentions are irrelevant to whether or not an act is
right!
Approaches to Morality:
Utilitarianism
•
Although it appears correct to some degree,
utilitarianism has many critics.
•
It seems not to account for the importance of duties
and obligations and intentions.
•
Consider the case of a man who attempts to shoot
his friend out of rage and jealousy and misses and
hits instead a sniper who is about to shoot a rifle
into a crowded mall. Did this man act morally? If
only consequences matter, we would probably have
to say that he did.
Utilitarianism
• Note that Utilitarians generally are arguing a
normative claim. A utilitarian may accept the
view that we often act from psychological
egoism, but would say that when we do so, we
may be acting unethically.
• Note that Utilitarians are hard absolutists.
• The principle of utility is sometimes referred to
as the greatest happiness principle.
• Utilitarianism is similar to but should be
distinguished from the view held by Machiavelli
that the means justifies the ends which may
promote an Egoist objective. Utilitarianism does
always advance the common good.
Jeremy Bentham
(1748 – 1832)
• The classical view of utilitarianism was expressed
by Jeremy Bentham.
• When choosing a course of action, always pick
the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes
unhappiness for the maximum number of people
• Bentham insisted that each individual must
decide for themselves what provides pleasure
and each person’s pleasure counts equally.
Hedonistic Utilitarianism
• Bentham is suggesting that what is good is
that which is pleasurable and what is bad is
what is painful.
• Thus, his view is known as hedonistic utilitarianism.
• However, please note that this classic view of utility
does understand that pursuing short-term pleasure
may actually be a bad thing. But the reason is
because exercising immediate and short-term
pleasures may not be a rational approach for
achieving maximum pleasure for all (or even for
oneself)
Problems with
Classical Utilitarianism
First of all, what are consequences anyway? They
only happen after we take action. They are
hypothetical.
Thus, an action cannot be said to be moral or not
until the consequences are known. Remember,
intentions don’t count.
But how long do we have to wait? With many moral
choices, all the consequences are not ever
known.
Thus, can we not ever say if the act is good or not?
& The Problem of Sheer Numbers!
If we are applying the greatest happiness principle,
would it be moral then to abuse a few individuals for
the enjoyment or welfare of the many?
Human experiments?
Animal experiments?
Stem cell research?
Snuff films?
Dog fights?
Human Torture? Abu Ghraib?
The Happiness Paradox
We often found happiness only when we are searching for
something else. The more we seem to value pleasure
for itself, the more it seems to elude us.
In response to Bentham, John Stuart Mill claims that
happiness is an intellectual achievement, not merely
pleasure.
(By the way, if you were wondering who was the first
philosopher to stress the important difference between
factual and normative statements and that one cannot
think critically about ethics without keeping this
difference clear, it was John Stuart Mill.)
John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873)
The Utilitarianism approach of Bentham and the
greatest happiness principle is deeply flawed.
“Ask yourself whether you are happy and you cease
to be so.”
Mill argued that you cannot simply identify pleasure
with good and evil with pain.
Mill proposed a version of utilitarianism that did not
fall back on hedonism. There are higher and
lower pleasures. Intellectual values drive us to
the higher pleasures.
John Stuart Mill:
A Revision of Utilitarianism
• Bentham’s view does not adequately inform us as
to what pleasure and pain is.
• Yes, maximimizing pleasure for the common good
depends on social equality, but such cannot be
achieved without proper education
• The greatest pleasures are “acquired tastes,” the
joy of solving a mathematical problem, of writing
an opera, of playing a violin, etc.
John Stuart Mill
Higher & Lower Pleasures
• Thus for J.S. Mill, some pleasures are of more
value than other pleasures! Humans will prefer
pleasures that maintain some form of dignity.
• “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied.”
John Stuart Mill’s
Higher & Lower Pleasures
• The greatest pleasures are “acquired tastes” and
derive from achievement -- the joy of solving a
mathematical problem, of writing an opera, of
playing a violin, etc.
• Thus, Mill emphasized the necessary role of
education for all. Social equality is achieved by
providing opportunity for all to achieve the highest
pleasures, not everybody settling for the lower
pleasures.
• Mill’s Harm Principle states that no mentally
competent adult should be forced to be subject to
other’s tastes, even if they are not in the majority,
as long as they do no harm to others.
John Stuart Mill’s
Harm Principle
•
This view may appear contradictory with his earlier view
of general education.
•
What Mill is saying is that we should educate all to give
them the opportunity to achieve, but ultimately if they
choose not to have the values that their education
encouraged them to have, no compulsion should be
advanced to make them live by any values other than
the ones they choose for themselves.
•
Thus, Mill would likely argue on the matter of “same sex
marriage” that we (even if we are the majority) should
“mind our own business!”
•
But what about the teenage girl who wishes to commit
suicide because she is pregnant? Should we “mind our
own business” on this, or should we intervene on the
basis the she is committing harm to others?
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
•
Utilitarians after John Stuart Mill have clarified Mill’s
position by differentiating Act Utilitarianism from Rule
Utilitarianism.
•
Act Utilitarianism says that one should: Always do
whatever act will create the greatest happiness for the
greater number of people.
•
Act Utilitarianism seems to suggest that it would be
right to abuse individuals for the sake of the common
good.
•
Rule Utilitarianism says that one should: Always do
whatever type of act will create the greatest
happiness for the greater number of people.
•
Thus, rule utilitarianism suggests that a pattern or rule
of abusing individuals for the sake of the common
good is not right.
Video:
Do Consequences Make
Actions Right?
(#19)
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Many argue against utilitarianism that what makes an action
moral is the intention under which it is done. A moral act is
done because it is the right thing to do.
•
But what is the right thing to do? Such a view can be
interpreted many ways and may even appear to beg the
question.
•
Is the right thing to do to follow the “golden rule which is
stated quite explicitly by many early Greek philosophers & in
the New Testament
-- Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others
what you would have them do to you, for this sums
up the Law and the Prophets."
This principle exists in all the major religions: Judaism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism,
Confucianism, and Taoism.
Problems Even With the Golden Rule
•
But how does one know how others want to be treated?
You may not be able to ask them because they do not
have the relevant experience.
•
"Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto
you. Their tastes may not be the same."
…George Bernard Shaw
Morality as Doing the Right Thing
•
Immanuel Kant proposes this sort of moral theory which
emphasizes the nature of duty and obligation
•
Thus, Kant’s view is called Deontology.
•
In Kant’s view, what makes an act the right thing to do is
not just because it is done with a good intention.
•
It is the right thing to do if it is is done out of an intention to
follow a moral law or rule out of a sense of duty or
obligation.
•
Otherwise the act is only done only as a hypothetical
imperative.
•
A hypothetical imperative is a act which is done based on a
conditional want or desire, e.g. If you want to get an ‘A’ in this
class, you should study for the final exam.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is done out
of the categorical imperative which does not depend on
circumstances or conditional wants or desires. The act is
done for the sake of the principle of doing the right thing.
•
Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are truly
acts of good will and thus, the person who does so has a
good will.
•
To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that our
own intentions ought to applied as a general law for
everybody.
Kant’s Deontology
•
For Immanuel Kant, another way of stating the categorical
imperative is that we should treat all persons as ends in
themselves, never as means to an end. Treat someone as
they agree to be treated.
•
This second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is
essentially the same principle as the first because the
categorical imperative universalizes your maxim. Both
formulations are basically saying do not treat yourself as an
exception!
•
Both formulations capture the essence of seems to be the
wisdom of the golden rule!
Video:
Can Rules Define Morality?
(#20)
Other Approaches to Morality
•
A popular view of morality of course is the view that
moral duty is set by a divine being.
•
But does anyone here remember Socrates?
•
But is an act right simply because God has
commanded it, or does God command it because it
is right?
•
In the first view, is God’s commandments arbitrary?
That doesn’t seem right. In the second view, is
there a criteria for morality which we can study
independent of God’s approval of certain acts?
Thus, many suggest that the Divine Commandment
view “begs the question.”
Rather than focusing on ethics as a matter
of what to do, another view focuses on
how to be.
In this view, known as virtue ethics, a
moral issue is not one of single actions but
is a matter of good character. It is a way of
living. In this view, ethics arises out of the
nature of a good person.
This approach is what was largely
accepted by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Plato & Socrates:
What is the Nature of a Virtuous Character?
What then makes an Act Moral or Good?
What is the Good Life?
How Should We Live?
What Makes Life Worth Living, that is, Good?
Aristotle:
What is a Virtuous Person?
•
Aristotle suggests to be virtuous is to act with
excellence, that is to live your life well according to
its purpose
•
Each person has both an individual purpose (what
you do best?) and a human purpose.
•
Man’s universal, human purpose is to reason, to
think rationally. In so doing, he will develop a
rational character which is moral goodness.
•
There are two forms of virtue:
1) When our soul controls our desires, we
engage our moral virtues.
2) When our soul contemplates intellectual or
spiritual matters, we engage our intellectual
virtues. (“sophia”)
Aristotle:
What is a Virtuous Person?
•
Virtue thus responds to each situation at the right
time, in the right way, in the right amount, for the
right reason.
•
Thus, a virtuous person will act with “moderation.”
•
This view is called “The Golden Mean” (and should
be carefully distinguished from “the golden rule.”)
•
Aristotle would cite the example of an artistic
masterpiece from which nothing can be added or
subtracted without harming the work’s “excellence.”
•
Only by following such a life of moderation will a
person achieve important virtues such as happiness
or courage.
Video:
Can Ethics Be Based on Virtue?
(#21)