Exam 2 File

3/26/2008
Ethics & Morality

Meta-ethics, Ethical Theories, and Applied Ethics
Ethics & Meta-Ethics

Different Types of Questions
Where does good come from?
VS
What is good, or what is the right thing to do?
VS
How do I know what the right thing to do is?
VS
Applying principles to everyday decisions/issues
3/26/2008
The meaning & • God

Meta-ethics source of the • Nature
• Human beings
good?
• Action-based
• Normative What is the • Outcome-based
ethics (or good? • Character-based

• Religious-based
just ethics)
Moral How do I know • I know by way of intuitions
epistemology the good? • I know by rational reflection
• Applied ethics
How do I do • Moral principles + facts = moral decision
the good?
3/26/2008
1
3/26/2008
What is Meta-ethics?
What kind of question is
“Where does good come from, or where does ethics
originate?”
What field of philosophy must we look to?
How might we answer the question “Where does

good come from, or where does ethics originate?”
How might we answer the question “what is good?”

3/26/2008
 Mackie --> presupposing moral facts exists is like

practicing religion when there is no God
 Bring, Blackburn, McDowell, Nagel--> morality is
a perfectly kosher practice
 Harman, Raiton, Jackson --> moral facts exists
and are just like other normal facts that exist
 Moore, McDowell, Sturgeon, Boyd, Brink, Dancy -
-> moral facts exist and are sui generis
 Railton, Boyd, Sturgeon, Brink--> moral facts
exist and are part of the causal explanatory
network
 Ayer, Hare, Mackie, Blackburn, Gibbard --> moral
facts do not exist at all
There are a lot of Things to Think about in Meta-ethics
 Hare, Nagel, Blackburn, McDowell, Korsgaard -->

there is a necessary connection between moral
judgments and the will
 Frankena, Foot, Scanlon, Railton, Brink --> there is
no necessary connection between moral judgments
and the will (external and contingent)
 Kant, Nagel, Darwall, Korsgaard--> moral
requirements are requirements of reason
 Hume, Foot, Scanlon, Blackburn, Williams, Railton,
Harman, Lewis --> acting immorally is not necessarily
acting irrationally
 Kant, Nagel, Darwall, Korsgaard, Brink --> morality is
objective
 Ayer, Mackie, Harman, Williams--> morality is not
objective
There are a lot of Things to Think about in Meta-ethics
2
3/26/2008
Nature Source Limits

• What is the • Where does • Is ethics true for
nature of ethics? ethics come everyone or just
from? some?
Meta-Ethics
We’ll be focusing on
two areas
The Metaphysics of Morality &
The Limits of Morality
Meta-Ethics
Metaphysics of morality
God Nature Human Beings
Objectivism Objectivism Relativism Nihilism
Ethical Ethical Ethical

theories theories relativism
3
3/26/2008
Let‘s look first at the possible sources of

ethics
Nature
Source Limits
Meta-Ethics
Meta-ethics Discussion Questions

Can someone be an atheist (i.e. not believe in God)
and be a morally good person?
Can someone be a theist (i.e. a believer in God) and

not be a morally good person?
Can someone be or not be a morally good person if

God doesn‘t exist?
3/26/2008
Meta-Ethics Debate
VIDEO
4
3/26/2008
Debate Analysis
Is God Necessary for Ethics?
Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

Christian) Humanist)
 Obligations vs. motivations  Un-ethical theists & ethical atheists
(ought vs. want) exist, but 1 instance defeats God‘s
 Obligations necessity for ethics
◦ Unlikelihood of closet atheism
◦ (1) Likes don‘t obligate
 If theism necessary
◦ (2) Only people obligate ◦ (1) Religion wouldn‘t be determined by
◦ (3) Only an ultimate, personal location
authority who creates us can ◦ (2) But it is, so relativism follows
obligate us (contradictory)
◦ (4) Without God, no values, ◦ (3) Religious dogma not useful for
naturalistic fallacy guidance (Bible, leaders)
 Motivations  Exclusivism begets violence
◦ Natural needs (self-interest, psych.,  Atheism  naturalism  reason 
physical, etc.) insufficient to ground cognition  self-awareness 
moral motivation subject/object
◦ Thrill-seeking/criminal life not  Reason says: sympathy mandates
objectionable under atheism, only moral duty to those who share same
option = ―you don‘t want to‖ intrinsic values
◦ But, it is objectionable since nihilism  Humanism‘s motives for acting more
isn‘t really an option for us pure (intrinsic) vs. theism (obedience)
Concise Summary of Opening Statements
Apparent Fallacies
of Reasoning?
Not a question of CONTENT yet…
5
3/26/2008

naturalistic fallacy guidance (Bible, leaders)
 Motivations  Exclusivism begets violence
◦ Natural needs (self-interest, psych.,  Atheism  naturalism  reason 
physical, etc.) insufficient to ground cognition  self-awareness 
moral motivation subject/object
◦ Thrill-seeking/criminal life not  Reason says: sympathy mandates
objectionable under atheism, only moral duty to those who share same
Apparent Fallacies? Poor Reasoning?

 Naturalistic fallacy  Appeal to masses?
Religion wouldn‘t be
 Lacking support: determined by location
But it is, so relativism follows
Thrill-seeking/criminal life (contradictory)
not objectionable under  Slippery slope?
atheism, only option = Exclusivism begets violence
 Begging the question or
―you don‘t want to‖ irrelevant?
 Appeal to intuition? Reason says: sympathy
mandates moral duty to those
But, it is objectionable who share same intrinsic values
since nihilism isn‘t really  Begging the question?
Humanism‘s motives for acting
an option for us more pure (intrinsic) vs. theism
(obedience)
Apparent Fallacies? Poor Reasoning?
Soundness/Cogency?
Assuming the arguments are valid/strong,
which if any succeed or fail based on content?
6
3/26/2008

naturalistic fallacy 
guidance (Bible, leaders)
Exclusivism begets violence
 Motivations  Atheism  naturalism  reason 
◦ Natural needs (self-interest, psych., cognition  self-awareness 
physical, etc.) insufficient to ground subject/object
moral motivation
 Reason says: sympathy mandates
◦ Thrill-seeking/criminal life not moral duty to those who share same
objectionable under atheism, only
Concise Summary of Opening Statements
Excurses #1 on Debate
Naturalism & the Naturalistic Fallacy
What are we
Meta-ethics doesn‘t define
―good‖ but talks about its Talking about?
nature, origin, and use.
Possible meanings of the

word ―Should‖: Framing
 Expectation  The taxi should be the
here in a few minutes issue
 Rationality  you should believe in
Santa if the evidence warrants it
 Normativity & Morality  you should
not torture babies for the fun of it
7
3/26/2008
Realism  the view that the Terminology

things we talk about really
exist out there
Anti-realism  the view that
the things we talk about
really don‘t exist out there
Cognitivism  the view that
our judgments can be true or
false (at least)
Non-cognitivism  the view
that our judgments cannot be
true or false (e.g. feelings)
Meta-Ethical Positions
* Both agree that moral facts exist, can be true and false, and that
when we talk and think about ethics we are forming rational beliefs
about ethics
What are Mark’s & David’s Views?
8
3/26/2008
“Is God Necessary for Ethics?”

Important Question
What is the true nature of this debate?
What would another emphasis look like?
Meta-Ethics
Metaphysics of morality
Human
God Nature
Beings
Human Beings vs. Nature vs. God

 Human beings   Religion/God  according to
divine command theory,
according to emotivism, morality gets its meaning
moral utterances are because it is defined into
expressions of emotion. existence by God‘s commands
Nature  according to naturalism, morality finds its origin

in the natural world, and moral facts are really natural
facts in disguise.
All 3 Major Views

seem to have Serious Problems
9
3/26/2008
 No, it isn‘t about tree

hugging and saving the
whales.
 Philosophical Naturalism
is a view about the
methods of discovering
truth and/or the nature of
the world.
 Naturalism focused on method says that natural science
is the way to discover truth.
 Naturalism about the world says that all that is natural
is all that is (artificial doesn‘t mean un-natural here, and
―feeling‖ natural isn‘t what is meant by this, either).
What is Naturalism?
We will consider naturalism and non-naturalism as

realist + cognitivist views
Naturalism and Non-Naturalism
―To ask no more of the world than we

already know is there—the ordinary
features of things on the basis of
which we make decisions about them,
like or dislike them, fear them and
avoid them, desire them and seek
them out. It asks no more than this: a
natural world, and patterns of reaction
to it… The problem is one of finding
room for ethics, or placing ethics
Simon Blackburn
within the disenchanted, non-ethical
order which we inhabit, and of which
we are a part.‖
- Simon Blackburn
The Essence of Moral Naturalism
10
3/26/2008
The Normal way to see

Ethical Naturalism is to Say
―Good/Bad = X‖ and X is some natural fact
So, ethics is reducible to something natural
X = Utility?  happiness  happiness for everyone

X = Reason?  what is reasonable for all to do
X = Virtue?  what flows from/to character
X = Ability to sympathize, recognize value in others?
X = Evolution?  self-interest or biological function
X = ________ ? (some other scientific fact or state)
Naturalistic Explanations
We could propose
theories all day long
But, we need to know whether it is even possible
to reduce ―good‖ to some natural property…
The Problem with Naturalism

The IS/OUGHT Problem
Martha needs a B in philosophy
___________________________
She ought to cheat to get a B
What‘s wrong with this argument?
3/26/2008
11
3/26/2008

Martha needs a B in philosophy
If Martha cheats, then she will get a B
___________________________
She ought to cheat to get a B
This argument is now valid, and it is

also sound
3/26/2008

Martha needs a B in philosophy (M)
If Martha cheats (M), then she will get a B (B)
___________________________
She ought to cheat to get a B (B)
Problem Fixed?
3/26/2008

MB
M
____
Therefore, B
So, what’s the Problem?
3/26/2008
12
3/26/2008

Let‘s change it so
MB that M = ―Mary
M tortures and kills
____ some of her
fellow students‖
Therefore, B
Now, what’s the Problem?
3/26/2008
G.E. Moore was an Non-Naturalist
Moore‘s famous ―Open Question‖ argument resulting

in the Naturalistic Fallacy (IS/OUGHT problem)
1. Assumption: good = N
(N is a naturalistic property or fact)
2. We can ask whether it is good that ―good = N‖?
3. Therefore, good cannot be defined as N
G.E. Moore
Frankena‘s Objection to Moore

Moore‘s argument:
1. Assumption: good = N
(N is a naturalistic property or fact)
Objection: premise #2 begs the question if premise

#1 is really true. We can‘t ask if ―good = N‖.
Is Moore Right?
13
3/26/2008
Is Moore Defeated?
Objection: premise #2 begs the question if premise #1 is
really true. We can‘t ask if ―good = N‖.
Response: Some think Moore‘s argument still establishes a

presumption against naturalism
Why?
Because the purpose of morality is to inform, enlighten, and
guide our actions, we can still ask whether ―good = N‖.
Morality sort of escapes whatever box we try to put it in

because some things just seem intuitively wrong
Moore Vindicated?
Companion to Epistemology
Intuition requires the following 3 conditions:
1. Something is known
2. Something is known immediately
3. Something is known without being known
through any of the 5 senses
What is Intuition?
A.C. Ewing on Moral Intuition

3/26/2008
14
3/26/2008
Soundness/Cogency?
Assuming the arguments are valid/strong,
which if any succeed or fail based on content?

 We discover the correct  Intrinsic value comes from
theism by investigation our purpose/direction in life
 Oughts are biological
 Christian theism makes sense  Creativity/energetics in
of reality (fallen + good) creation give purpose
 A personal God is the best despite chance origin
explanation for a source of  God does no explanatory
good for us
purposes/goals (cf. Star Wars)
 A life of crime is bad because
 We don‘t need to understand it overrides intrinsic value of
meta-ethics to live ethically others
and peacefully  Atheism also begets violence
 Intrinsic value = God given  Intrinsic value = persons
(dreams, ambitions,
purposes, aspirations)
Q & A Evaluation

 I agree ethics is grounded on  Secular philosophy allows
what is real
 Question is whether God is us freedom universally to
real define however, but
 No argument given yet for theism is fine on a
ethics under atheism
personal level
 God is real and grounds
ethics  Biology grounds ethics
 Evidence determines which  Theology does ethics no
view is correct
good
 David says people are
people, people hurt, they  Public policy needs
have value, but no humanistic, secular
explanation for value
foundation
Closing Statements
18
3/26/2008
God as the source of ethics
If God is the source of ethics, then God‘s existence and commands

either true or false, and we know them by coming to have beliefs
about the relevant facts
What are Mark’s & David’s Views?
What do all these The 10 Commandments

commands have in
common?
1. You shall not worship any other god
but YHWH.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH
in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10. You shall not covet.
19
3/26/2008
Observations on The
Euthyphro Dilemma Makes goodness (i.e.
morality) outside of God
Good is what God wills?
and God‘s control.
 Makes goodness
arbitrary
What God wills is

Good?  requires
moral fact ―goodness‖
exists independent of
Contradicts our
God
intuitive sense of
right and wrong
3/26/2008
Position #1: “Good” is what God wills Position #2: God wills what is “Good”
Divine Command Theory The Autonomy Thesis
1. Morality originates with God. 1. Morality does not originate

with God.
2. Moral rightness simply means
―willed by God‖ and moral 2. Rightness and wrongness are
wrongness means ―being not based simply on God‘s
against the will of God‖.
will.
3. Since morality is essentially
based on divine will, not on 3. Essentially, there are reasons
independently existing reasons for acting one way or the
for action, no further reasons other, which may be known
for action are necessary. independent of God‘s will.
So, if God exists, What’s the problem?
“If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong,
you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat
[commands] or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God
Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is
no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you
are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must
then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is
independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not
good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you
are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only
through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they
are in their essence logically anterior to God.”
- Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, p. 12.
The Problem with God as Source
21
3/26/2008
Phillip Quinn’s Defense of DCT

 Under his view (and others), goodness and duty are
separate things
 Goodness applies to God, while
duty/rightness/wrongness flow from God‘s
commands
 So, ultimately ―Good = God‖
 Eventually, any concept finds its ground in
something, which makes it what it is. So, good is
defined by God‘s own nature
―Lovingness is good… not because of… a general principle, but

because God, the supreme standard of goodness is loving… [God
has good features] just because they are features of God...
Consider the concept of the meter of length, before redefined in
terms of the wavelength of radiation… It was then the case that
what makes a certain length a meter is its equality to a particular
metal bar in Paris… By a necessity of the divine nature, God is
essentially perfectly loving. A being who is essentially perfectly
loving could not torture an innocent child just for the sake of
amusement… The attribute of being essentially perfectly just is
inherent in God‘s nature… God‘s goodness is not a matter of
obedience to self-addressed commands; it is instead of a matter of
having a nature that is loving, merciful, and so forth and acting in
ways that flow from having such a nature… though my axiology
does make goodness independent of divine commands, it does
not render goodness independent of God.‖
- Quinn, Oxford Handbook on Ethical Theory
Phillip Quinn’s Response
A Remaining Problem for DCT

 Consider the problem of
Abraham and the command to Kierkegaard  he
sacrifice Isaac affirmed #2 while
 A DCT defender cannot hold all 3 denying#3.
of the following, so which one
does he/she reject? Kant  he affirmed
◦ (1) If God commands me to do
something, it is not morally wrong #3 while denying
for me to do it. #2.
◦ (2) God commands me (Abraham) to
kill my son.
◦ (3) It is morally wrong for me to kill
my son.
22
3/26/2008
Moore‘s Fallacy Applies to DCT

His argument counts against ANY fact we could put in for N
1. Assumption: good = N (N is God‘s commands)

Mark recognizes this in the debate, but says essentially that IF

ANY source is appropriate, then God is the most
appropriate being the ultimate person and ground of all
being. But does this invalidate his argument against
atheism?
A Deeper Problem
Natural Law: A Solution?

 Natural Law Ethics makes God the source of ethics.
 Natural Law Ethics is involuntaristic.
 Natural Law has to do with a design-plan that
makes sense out of good/bad, right/wrong. Ethics is
defined according to the way things were meant to
function.
 The question ―is God good?‖ still remains, but ―God
= good‖ fits better, arguably, with a design-plan for
the world than Quinn‘s dis-unifying ethics into 2
realms.
Human beings as the source of ethics
NOT DISCUSSED IN DEBATE
23
3/26/2008
The emotivist
“projects” his/her
moral judgments
upon the world as
a fact. But, they
are just emotions.
Human Being as the Source of Morality

An Emotivist Projects onto the World
3/26/2008
Relativism Emotivism
 Ethics is real, there are  Ethics in a sense isn‘t real,
moral facts. there are no moral facts.
 Those moral facts vary and  Moral facts don‘t depend
depend upon upon persons/cultures.
persons/cultures.  Moral judgments aren‘t
propositional, but are
 Moral judgments are nothing but expressions of
propositional, ―X is emotion, not sayings
disapproved of.‖ about emotion.
Relativism vs. Emotivism

3/26/2008
26
3/26/2008
Option 1: Emotions as “Ethical feelings”

Problem #1  explaining these ethical feelings
becomes circular.
―What are moral judgments? Those which express ethical
feelings. What are ethical feelings? Those which are moral
judgments.‖ (Alexandar Miller, Intro. To Contemp. Meta-ethics, 44)
Problem #2  from experience we don‘t seem to have
any such special feelings that only fit in with ethics.
Problem #3  what do we match the emotion up with,
in the case of a small child? Anything could cause
fear or disapproval, so it‘s arbitrary.
3/26/2008
Option 2: Emotions as everyday feelings

―My judgment that murder is wrong… [is no different
than]...my judgment that the Spice Girls‘ latest single is
awful and my judgment that jellied eels aren‘t nice. Just
as these latter two judgments express my distaste for a
certain sort of crass music and a certain sort of
foodstuff, my judgment that murder is wrong will simply
express my distaste for murderous actions. The strength
of the distaste may be stronger in the latter case, but
that will be the only difference…‖ (Miller, 46)
As a response, an appeal to the reasons for moral belief

would refute actually emotivism! (non-cognitivist)
3/26/2008
Moore‘s Fallacy Applies to Emotivism

His argument counts against ANY fact we could put in for N
1. Assumption: good = N (N is emotions)

Neither Mark nor David take the position of emotivism in the

debate, however.
A Deeper Problem
30
3/26/2008
Let‘s look next at range that ethics extends
Nature Source
Limits
Meta-Ethics
Ethical Relativism
―Right for you, but not for me?‖
3/26/2008
Is this Wrong?
32
3/26/2008
Ethical relativism holds that

moral judgments are like
personal matters like food
preferences.
Food preferences depend on the

individual and on the culture
one lives in.
What a person likes to eat is

generally seen as right or wrong
according to one‘s personal
views or culture.
Likewise, morality depends on

personal views and/or culture.
Is this Wrong?
Overview of Relativism
Maybe individuals define ethics for all
Subjective Absolutism
Maybe individuals define ethics for themselves
Subjective (individualistic) Relativism
Maybe ethics is based on cultural approval
Cultural Relativism
Maybe ethics is merely approval/emotion
Emotivism
Maybe ethics are the same for all
Objectivism/universalism
3/26/2008
Subjective Absolutism
 According to subjective absolutism what makes an

action right is that one approves of it.
 Suppose that someone approves of action A. Then A
would be morally right (for all).
 Suppose that someone else disapproves of
A. Then A would be morally wrong (for all).
 But it‘s logically impossible for the same action to be
both right and wrong.
3/26/2008
33
3/26/2008
Louis Pojman‘s Argument

1. Suppose CER is true 1. The opposition of ER is OE
2. We can logically reduce 2. Therefore, either EN or OE
CER to SER (because a is true.
culture could be one 3. Probably EN is false (no
person) good reason to believe it)
3. SER is the very annihilation 4. Therefore, probably OE is
of ethics (Pojman defines true
ethics as social by
definition) CER = cultural relativism
SER = subjective/individual
relativism
OE = objectivism
EN = ethical nihilism
Is Ethical Relativism Incoherent?
Is Morality Objective?
 If morality is objective, then at least some things are

morally right or wrong regardless of our opinions
about it.
 If there is moral right and wrong then morality is as
true and fixed as mathematical truths, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2.
 If morality is fixed, then we can be mistaken about
what is moral and immoral
What makes morality fixed?

Back to meta-ethics!
3/26/2008
The Examined Life

―Is Morality Relative?‖
37
3/26/2008
―What
happens in
Vegas stays in
Vegas.‖
Cultural Relativism’s Slogan
―What
happens in
Nazi Germany
stays in Nazi
Germany?‖
Cultural Relativism’s Slogan
Normative Ethical Theories

How do we define ―right‖ and ―wrong‖?
3/26/2008
38
3/26/2008
How can we possibly

know what is Good?
Isn‘t it all just a matter of opinion?
Options for discovering the good:

1. Go with our gut.
2. ―Bumper sticker‖ ethics.
3. Arbitrary.
4. What makes the most sense: rules.
Discovering Right & Wrong?
Examples of some rules:

 ―Let your conscience be your guide.‖ (problem: depends on
upbringing)
 ―Do whatever is most loving.‖, e.g. ―love God and do
whatever you want‖ (Augustine) (Problems: (1) love enemies
always? (2) love who?)
 ―Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.‖
(Problems: (1) personal likes determine what to do to others,
(2) even adding ―if in their shoes‖, not always right to fulfill
desires of just anyone, e.g. mass murderer)
Conclusion: these rules are useful but not exhaustive in

themselves (e.g. conflicts): they are limited.
Discovering Right & Wrong?
40
3/26/2008
FACTS vs. VALUES

 To move too quickly from  Not all values are
facts to values results in subjective, but some seem
what Hume called the to be objectively valuable.
Naturalistic Fallacy.  We could know what
 We could know all true things are valuable but
propositions but still lack have a lack of knowledge
a knowledge of what of many facts.
things are valuable.
Transitioning from Facts to Values
Theory 1 - Hedonism Theory 2 – Non-Hedonism

 Def.  whatever is  Def.  the good does not
pleasurable is good,
whatever is unpleasuable or revolve around
painful is bad. This is a pleasure/happiness.
monistic view.
Type 1 - Sensualist version: Type 1 – monist: only one

sensual stimulation type of good (e.g. virtue)
Type 2 - Satisfactionists:
pleasurable state of mind Type 2 – pluralist: many
(most today are Epicureans) types of good
2 Big Types of Ethical Theories
Axiology: Value theory

How do we know which
theory is correct?
What things in life do you value most?
What is most valuable to human beings?
What things are most valuable in life?
3/26/2008
42
3/26/2008
Dilbert on the basis of ethics – intrinsic value

3/26/2008
What makes values valuable and

What kinds of values are there?
Objective view – things in
themselves are valuable
◦ Extrinsic/instrumental values –
valuable for as an instrument for
getting something else
◦ Intrinsic values – things valuable or
good in and of themselves (pleasure,
happiness, duty, etc.)
Subjective view – things are

valuable to us (opinions or
emotions) [relativism,
emotivism]
Thought Experiment: Value

The Matrix
43
3/26/2008
Ethics & the Matrix

28:50, 1:03:30
Neo vs. Cypher
3/26/2008
44
3/26/2008
Neo vs. Cypher Hedonist
Non-Hedonist
3/26/2008
Value Theory
What is Most Valuable?
Would you enter the Matrix?
Life in the machine is missing something
1. Action – machine is totally passive
2. Freedom – machine determines choices
3. Character – want to be someone, not just act freely
4. Relationships – no real people
5. Meaning/religion – there is no deeper meaning than
what the computer is programmed for
1. An ―open question‖  is
it good to have the most
pleasure even in a world
with the most evil (evil on
some other definition)?
2. There seem to be
intrinsic values besides
pleasure/happiness. Bliss is ignorance?
The Problems with Hedonism
45
3/26/2008
Appeal to a system or hierarchy

Or
Try to maximize one thing

(monism) : revelation,
pleasure production, freedom,
rationality, etc.
We will be only focusing only the maximizing idea
How do you justify a moral value?
Principles (action-guiding rules):

derived from what things we value
Reason/Individuals Do only that which would you want
everyone to do.
Virtue/Character Do what helps you become a better
person.
Utility
Life Do not murder.

Freedom Don‘t deprive others of freedom.
Privacy Respect peoples‘ privacy.
Happiness Work toward satisfactions.
Pleasure Maximize pleasurable sensations.
How values ground ethics
Action-
based
Religio
us-
based
Value Outcom
e-based
Motive – plays some

Virtue- role in any ethical
based theory
The Foundation of Normative Ethical Theories

3/26/2008
46
3/26/2008
The Big Ones:

Action-based  value: the

will, reason Normative
 Outcome-based  value: Ethical
pleasure, well-being, or
circumstantial
Theories
 Character-based  value:
people
These
 Religious-based Faith-based theories place
(DCT)  value: obedience to different
God or reasoned obedience
to God, based on design-plan
values at the
(natural law) center
Ethical Theories
What is the basis for different theories?
 Ethical theories revolve around what is deemed most valuable
 This makes ethics a sub-field of ‗value theory‘ (axiology)
 Whatever is intrinsically valuable (life, freedom, happiness,
character, duty, others, self, good will) becomes the core of
different ethical theories
 Some values are non-moral (e.g. pleasure)
 To determine which ethical theory you believe in, first
determine what it is you value most
 To determine which ethical theory is the correct one, we need
to determine what is most valuable
3/26/2008
Applied Ethics & Judgments

 Ethics is mostly worthless without application
(abortion, etc.)
 Applied ethics takes the facts into consideration and
then uses our ethical principle (action-based, etc.) to
determine what to do
FACTS + MORAL PRINCIPLE =

MORAL JUDGEMENT
3/26/2008
47
3/26/2008
Consequentialist Ethical Theories

THE GOOD = THE CONSEQUENCES/OUTCOME
Ethical Egoism
A simple idea: good = me!
48
3/26/2008
David’s Objection to Egoism

If I have intrinsic value, then those who are relevantly similar to
me do as well, therefore all deserve the same treatment.
The problem with egoism:

It says ―live for yourself‖ but it can‘t justify it and it can‘t
practice it!
Jeremy Bentham
John Stuart Mill
Universalized Egoism?
Utilitarianism: the view that each person is considered
equally and that we should maximize the ―good‖ of each
individual. It goes far beyond egoism.
Question: how does utilitarianism define ―the good‖?
―It‘s a funny thing about

pleasure… it can be quite
pleasurable!‖
- Bruce (Bruce Almighty)
Hedonism’s Strong Point
50
3/26/2008
Utilitarianism Applied
Case Study #1
Immanuel Kant and Our Ethical Duties
3/26/2008
News
Article
3/26/2008
54
3/26/2008
Kant‘s Categorical Imperative

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ―Kant‘s Moral Philosophy‖
First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you
propose.
Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational
agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself
propose to act in these circumstances.
Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world

governed by this law of nature. If it is, then,
Fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on
your maxim in such a world.
… If you could, then your action is morally permissible.

Maxim = a rule
Applying Kant’s Moral

Example #1 – can you Philosophy
morally justify telling lying Steps:
promises? (i.e. whenever you
1. Maxim (rule)
promise someone something, 2. Universalize the
you can lie about fulfilling your maxim (rule)
promise.) 3. Is the maxim
conceivable in a world
governed by the
Step 1 _____________________ universalized maxim?
Step 2 _____________________ 4. Can you will that this
Step 3 _____________________ maxim be
universalized?
Step 4 _____________________

The Lying Promise Example Philosophy
Steps:
Step 3:
 Every person is allowed to make 1. Maxim (rule)
lying promises. 2. Universalize the
 In such a world, the concept of a maxim (rule)
promise would have no practical 3. Is the maxim
meaning. conceivable in a world
 It would have no practical meaning governed by the
because promising wouldn‘t take universalized maxim?
place (it would lose all practical 4. Can you will that this
meaning!). maxim be
 But, the maxim requires promise- universalized?
making, which wouldn‘t exist.
58
3/26/2008

Example #2 – can you Philosophy
morally justify the neglect Steps:
of your own talents?
1. Maxim (rule)
2. Universalize the
maxim (rule)
3. Is the maxim
Step 1 _____________________
conceivable in a world
Step 2 _____________________ governed by the
Step 3 _____________________ universalized maxim?
Step 4 _____________________ 4. Can you will that this
maxim be
universalized?

The Neglected Talents Philosophy
Example Steps:
Step 3: 1. Maxim (rule)

 Every person is allowed to
2. Universalize the
maxim (rule)
neglect his/her own talents
3. Is the maxim
 The maxim wouldn‘t clash with conceivable in a world
the universalized maxim governed by the
 In a world where every person universalized maxim?
neglects his/her talents, I may 4. Can you will that this
still neglect my talents. It would maxim be
just be a boring world. universalized?

The Neglected Talents Example Philosophy
Steps:
Step 4:
 Every person is allowed to neglect 1. Maxim (rule)
his/her own talents. 2. Universalize the
 Such a world is conceivable. maxim (rule)
 But, according to Kant, we 3. Is the maxim
naturally tend toward our own conceivable in a world
happiness, but this requires others governed by the
to use their talents for our benefit. universalized maxim?
 So, we couldn‘t will it to become 4. Can you will that this
real because it would go against maxim be
our natural tendency to want our universalized?
own happiness.
59
3/26/2008
Help on Determining Self-Defeating Maxims

Universalized Maxim (rule) Point of original maxim? Result?
Everyone should grow … for me to eat/sell. Success
food.
Everyone should not grow … for me not to eat/sell. Success
food.
Everyone should obey civil … for civil order. Success
authorities.
Everyone should not obey … for an advantage over Fail
civil authorities. others who do obey.
Everyone should buy ? Fail
shoes but not sell them.
No one should buy shoes, ? Fail
but everyone should sell
them.
Help on Determining Self-Defeating Maxims

Universalized Maxim (rule) Point of original maxim? Result?
If my name is Bob Jones … for me (Bob Jones) to Success
and I am in situation X, be able to do [blah
then it is OK to lie to my blah]…. BUT, this rule may be too
employer about intending specific.
to stay at my current job,
while actually quitting if
job Y becomes available.
Lying is acceptable ... for me it‘s OK to lie. Fails
But, this rule may be too

general.
A problem/criticism of Kantian Morality
Categorical Imperative #2
―Don‘t treat people merely as means, but also as
ends in themselves‖
60
3/26/2008
A Brief Look at Ancient Ethics

Pre-Socratic Ethics
Pythagoras Heraclitus Democritus
The sophists
Socratic Ethics
Socratic Schools
Megarian Cyrenaic Cynic Platonic
Aristotelian Ethics
The ―Golden Mean‖ determines

what promotes virtue, and so
Virtue Ethics
determines the ―good‖ According to the essence of human nature
Or, according to useful habits

Virtues are qualities of excellence
The virtuous person functions

properly
Virtuous acts  virtuous habits 

virtuous character
Aristotle
The result = the ―good‖ life
(eudemonia)
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

―The good is that which all things aim‖
 Overlap: happiness from utilitarianism +

reason of Kantian ethics = means to discover
virtue
 Aristotle was big into teleology; to know
what a thing is requires knowing its 4 causes
62
3/26/2008

 Thing‘s essence/nature: what it can do that nothing

else can do, virtue is doing this excellently.
◦ This comes on the heals of philosophy of mind.
◦ Happiness is ultimate goal, but not an ethical goal, and it
comes from functioning well.
◦ Human essence = reason (so we must develop this to
know and act)

The essence of a sports car?
The essence of a musical instrument?
Red Green on Proper Function

―The Red Green Show‖
64
3/26/2008

Cause Example 1 Example 3:

Human Beings
Matter Wood _____________ ?
Form Seat with base, legs, _____________ ?
and back
Power Carpentry (brings it _____________ ?
into being)
End Purpose: sitting _____________ ?

Cause Example 3:
Human Beings
Matter Flesh and bone
Form Reason
Power A parent
End Eudaimonia (happiness)

 How to achieve the ―good life‖ or

eudaimonia/happiness  the virtues
 Virtues are simply beneficial characteristics necessary
for life
◦ Courage to step out the front door, wisdom to act intelligently
◦ Restraint to keep out of trouble, justice to get along w/others
 Virtues are the products of habits
 Moral vs. intellectual virtues
◦ Virtue helps us achieve happiness
◦ Aquinas adds theological virtue later
65
3/26/2008

 Laws are for the purpose of shaping character,

character is not innate but acquired.
 Aristotle on the purpose of law
 Billy on p. 45!
◦ The purpose of law: shape character
◦ After leaving home, a child/person needs further limits
 Laws  focus on friendship
Philippa Foot’s Notes on

 Point #1 – the virtues are connected with the will, e.g.
getting a math problem wrong can be intentional and
doesn‘t affect skill while intentionally kicking someone
unfairly does.
 Point #2 – the virtues are corrective, they reverse
inherent weakness/vices.
 Point #3 – what do we do about the wise or
courageous thief? Poison is still poison even if not a
poison in every context, having courage vs. acting
courageously.
* Philippa Foot, ―Virtues and Vices‖ in Ethics for Modern Life, Abelson, Friquegnon, New York:
New York, Bedford, 2003).
Examples of Virtues: Cardinal Virtues

Rendering what
is due, between Courage
selfishness and
selflessness
Fortitude
Justice
Wisdom, Taking things

foresight, or in moderation
practical
wisdom
Prudence Temperance
The mother of all virtues * Pictures from Wikipedia.
66
3/26/2008

Other virtue?
Human virtue
(Aquinas)
Intellectual * Practical wisdom

Moral virtue
virtue (prudence)  it
unifies all the virtues
Understanding because it is the
Temperance Science ability to make right
Fortitude Wisdom
Justice Art decisions.
Prudence
Aristotle’s
 All the moral virtues are unified Virtue Ethics
by practical wisdom Moral:
 All the moral virtues are Temperance
interconnected Fortitude
◦ Practical wisdom requires fear of Justice
Courage
error but courage to pursue Friendliness
truth Generosity
◦ Justice affects friendliness,
courage affects generosity, etc. Intellectual:
◦ So, one‘s political life and one‘s Understanding
private life are interconnected Science
Wisdom
 Even practical wisdom depends Art
on moral virtues Prudence
The Virtues Clarified

* http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/ArisVirtuesTable.htm
67
3/26/2008
Aristotle‘s Golden Mean
* Cliff Notes: Aristotle‘s Ethics
Summary of Virtue Ethics

Good is teleological eudaimonia/happiness is the
goal of a virtuous life  happiness is activity of soul
in accordance with virtue  requires good habits
acting based on mean  mean determined by
facts + perceptions
Strengths: (1) values being over doing,
(2) motivational
Weaknesses: how can we be virtuous unless we have
a clear sense of what a virtuous action is?
Aquinas’ Natural Law Ethics

―The root of evil is this: not being in accord with nature.‖ (Augustine)
 Teleological
 There are religious and non-religious versions of
Natural Law
 Stoicism: God is diffused throughout nature
(pantheism) – morality is about living rationally
 Law of nature vs. law of morality: descriptive vs.
prescriptive
 We look at certain aspects of our human nature to
find out what is good (conscience directs us toward
the moral law which is written into nature itself)
69
3/26/2008

 There is a purpose, a natural purpose or design-plan

behind moral commands or rules
 This design-plan depends upon the power or efficient
cause of nature, either itself or God
 Traditionally, Natural Law in the Thomistic tradition
focused upon God‘s laws and their justification
 Natural Law = the reflection of eternal law in the
created, rational mind, directing us toward out natural
good
(1) Primary rules (axioms): love neighbor
(2) Secondary precepts (derived from primary ones)

 This theory is non-voluntaristic

 Natural law is about our natural inclinations to what is
natural
 Aquinas agreed on pursuit of happiness but also
included pursuit of supernatural happiness
(contemplation of God)
 Basically, Aquinas Christianized Aristotle
◦ Natural law = DCT + reason
◦ Natural laws aren‘t the only ones God gives, he also gives divine
laws through revelation (things we wouldn‘t know naturally)
 Aquinas expanded the virtues
Evidence for Natural Law

There are legal and natural penalties.
Natural: guilt, procreative burden, poverty, disease
(eventually we solve the puzzle and stop doing bad).
70
3/26/2008
Commandment #6: "―You shall not commit adultery. "

(Deuteronomy 5:18, NIV)
Marriage is always bilateral, even in polygamous and

polyandrous societies, since one is not married once to many
wives, but has many man-woman marriages
Polygamy and polyandry nowhere both tolerated at the same
time
Presupposes a man and woman complement each other, not
man-man or woman-woman
Both needed to raise healthy child, we all need model of both
sexes
Human body designed for procreation
Budziszewski on the purpose of the big 10
Commandment #6: "―You shall not commit adultery. "

(Deuteronomy 5:18, NIV)
Consequences of polygamy
 Undermines intimacy
 Weakens bond between father and child
 Turns women into social inferiors
 Kindles jealousy (wives and children)
 Polygamy cannot satisfy the heart: love poems written to one person
Commandment #7: ―You shall not steal." (Deuteronomy

5:19, NIV)
Presupposes no one should take from another against
his/her reasonable will
Reasonableness renders it common
Without this ‗reason‘, it doesn‘t make sense, for it allows
injustice
Presupposes all recognize such a thing as personal
property
Doesn‘t assume people always apply this law correctly
When people concoct justifications to cover actions of
stealing, they are revealing that they understand the law
all too well
74
3/26/2008
And so on…
See J. Budziszewski, ―What we Can‘t Not Know.‖
Natural Law Ethics

(Aquinas, 1225 - 1274)
Characteristics of Natural Law Theory of Morality

Thomas Aquinas
Human beings are endowed with rationality and

designed to function in a certain way
Reason discovers laws that promote flourishing (an

intrinsic value) even without God
These laws are universal and unchanging

3/26/2008
Problems for Natural Law

Problem: if natural laws are absolute, what
happens when values conflict?
Solution: Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

establishes rules to solve conflicts. These
rules are based on two commonsense Thomas
Aquinas
principles:
1. It is always wrong to do bad in order to accomplish good, yet

one can do good even if one forsees bad side-effects
2. There must be certain foundational, intrinsic moral values as a

starting point for morality (e.g. desires for life, procreation,
friendship, and knowledge). These values lead to human flourishing.
75
3/26/2008
Difficulties with Each Theory

This is what makes ethics tricky
Rule Utilitarianism  exceptions sometimes work better

(reduces down to ‗act‘) genocide could be good, rule
formation is tedious), selfless acts not required
Kant’s Deontology  determining principle all act on can be
subjective, ingenious formulation of rule might work, no
perfect duties exist, allows animals to be used as means,
sometimes we must use people merely as means
(quarantines, using some as means to avoid more of the
same), rules over persons
3/26/2008
Difficulties with Each Theory

This is what makes ethics tricky
Virtue Ethics  difficult to determine the right action
(begs the question), solving moral dilemmas is
difficult.
Natural Law ethics  reducing ethics down to proper
function might turn practical behavior into moral
behavior.
3/26/2008
3/26/2008
77
3/26/2008
3/26/2008
78

Exam 2 File

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Exam 2 File

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3/26/2008

Ethics & Morality

Ethics & Meta-Ethics

What is good, or what is the right thing to do?

How do I know what the right thing to do is?

Applying principles to everyday decisions/issues

The meaning & • God

ethics (or good? • Character-based

epistemology the good? • I know by rational reflection

What field of philosophy must we look to?

How might we answer the question “Where does

How might we answer the question “what is good?”

 Mackie --> presupposing moral facts exists is like

There are a lot of Things to Think about in Meta-ethics

 Hare, Nagel, Blackburn, McDowell, Korsgaard -->

There are a lot of Things to Think about in Meta-ethics

Nature Source Limits

Objectivism Objectivism Relativism Nihilism

Ethical Ethical Ethical

Let‘s look first at the possible sources of

Meta-ethics Discussion Questions

Can someone be a theist (i.e. a believer in God) and

Can someone be or not be a morally good person if

Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

Concise Summary of Opening Statements

Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

Apparent Fallacies? Poor Reasoning?

Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

Apparent Fallacies? Poor Reasoning?

Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

Concise Summary of Opening Statements

Possible meanings of the

Realism  the view that the Terminology

“Is God Necessary for Ethics?”

Human Beings vs. Nature vs. God

Nature  according to naturalism, morality finds its origin

All 3 Major Views

 No, it isn‘t about tree

We will consider naturalism and non-naturalism as

―To ask no more of the world than we

The Normal way to see

X = Utility?  happiness  happiness for everyone

The Problem with Naturalism

What‘s wrong with this argument?

The Problem with Naturalism

This argument is now valid, and it is

The Problem with Naturalism

The Problem with Naturalism

The Problem with Naturalism

G.E. Moore was an Non-Naturalist

Moore‘s famous ―Open Question‖ argument resulting

Frankena‘s Objection to Moore

Objection: premise #2 begs the question if premise

Response: Some think Moore‘s argument still establishes a

Morality sort of escapes whatever box we try to put it in

A.C. Ewing on Moral Intuition

Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

Mark (Theism  David (Atheism 

If God is the source of ethics, then God‘s existence and commands

What do all these The 10 Commandments

What God wills is

1. Morality originates with God. 1. Morality does not originate