Moral Skepticism. Dr. Charles K. Fink Miami Center for Ethical Awareness Miami Dade College
|
|
- Dominic Burke
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Moral Skepticism Dr. Charles K. Fink Miami Center for Ethical Awareness Miami Dade College Is there objective truth in ethics? Or is morality merely a matter of opinion? People often express skepticism about ethics. What s right for me may not be right for you. Who s to say what s right? It s impossible to prove anything in ethics. What is right in one culture may not be right in another. It is unclear, however, what people mean by such skeptical comments, or whether they are saying something important about the nature of morality. We will refer to the somewhat hazy idea that morality is merely a matter of opinion as moral skepticism. In this module, we will attempt to clarify this idea and see whether moral skepticism, in one form or another, is philosophically defensible. 1. Is Morality Based on Social Conventions? Different cultures adopt different standards of etiquette and there are no independent, absolute standards by which we might judge the behavior of all people. In America, people eat with forks and knives, whereas in India it is appropriate to eat with one s bare fingers. There are no correct standards concerning what eating utensils people should use, just different standards. According to cultural relativism, the same can be said about the standards of morality. In America, it is acceptable to use cows for food, whereas in India this practice is considered an abomination. In some parts of Asia, people commonly eat dogs and cats, but in America and India this is considered wrong. According to the cultural relativist, it is not the case that one culture is right about the morality of people s food choices, whereas other cultures are wrong. Rather what is right or wrong in morality is entirely conventional and varies from one culture to another. If this is correct, then the right thing for an individual to do is whatever that individual s culture believes is right. Thus, it is wrong for an Indian to eat beef, but it is not wrong for an American to do so. And it is wrong for an American to eat dogs and cats, but it is not wrong for a Korean to do so. 1 Special thanks to Dr. Amy Lund, my Co-Director at the Ethics Center, and Dr. Mark Neunder for their suggestions and critical comments. This module is intended primarily as a resource for teachers, but various parts can be adapted for use in the classroom. There are footnotes here and there which suggest possible teaching strategies. All boldfaced terms are included in the Glossary. 1 If you teach cultural anthropology, you might contrast and compare the ethical systems embraced by different cultures. Are there ethical principles that are more or less universally recognized? You might also discuss the work of socio-biologists concerning the evolution of moral behavior. (See Recommended Resources.) If you teach history, you might explore the question of moral progress. Is the United States, for example, a more moral nation today than at its inception because of the abolition of slavery, women s suffrage, or the civil rights movement? If you teach political science, you might raise moral questions about different political systems. Is a democratic society morally superior to a theocratic one? If you teach economics, you might raise moral questions about different economic systems. Is a capitalist society morally superior to a socialist one?
2 The most common argument in support of cultural relativism is based upon the observation that people in different cultures adopt different moral conventions: (1) Different cultures have different beliefs about what is right. (2) What is right in one culture may not be right in another. The view expressed in the first premise is sometimes called descriptive cultural relativism to distinguish it from normative cultural relativism, which is the view we have been examining. There is an important difference between the two that is often overlooked or obscured. Descriptive cultural relativism is a theory about what people believe is right or wrong, whereas normative cultural relativism is a theory about what really is right or wrong. The first is a theory about moral beliefs, whereas the second is a theory about moral standards themselves. The conclusion of this argument, therefore, does not follow from the premise. For example, during the Middle-Ages, it was commonly believed that the sun (and all other heavenly bodies) revolved around the earth. We now know that the earth gravitates around the sun. Does it follow that people in the Middle-Ages lived in a different universe, one in which the sun revolved around the earth? The fact that people in the past have had different beliefs about the nature of the universe does not affect the nature of the universe itself. Why should we think that people s beliefs about the facts of morality alter or influence what these facts are? People in the Middle-Ages may have believed that it was right to burn heretics at the stake, but from this it does not follow that it was right. For the normative cultural relativist, moral standards are conventional in the same sense in which the standards of etiquette are conventional. Morality is something that people invent. In critically evaluating this view, consider the following two questions. First, is it wrong for an outsider to pass judgment on another culture? Is it the case, in other words, that moral judgments can be made only from within a culturally established moral framework and have no objective validity? Second, is the essence of morality social conformity? Or does doing the right thing sometimes involve being critical of your culture? Let us explore both questions. First, is it wrong for an outsider to pass judgment on another culture? Consider the treatment of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Until recently, women in Afghanistan were banned from schools and universities and, except in rare cases, from outside employment. Indeed, women were banned from all activities outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (a father, a husband, or some other suitable male) and fully veiled in a burqa. Women who violated these restrictions, if only by having exposed ankles, were subject to public beatings and whippings. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) identifies several other restrictions imposed on women by the Taliban, including: a ban on the use of cosmetics ; a ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males ; a ban on women laughing loudly (no stranger should hear a woman s voice) ; a ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking (a man must not hear a woman s footsteps) ; a ban on women s wearing brightly colored
3 clothes, which are regarded as sexually attracting colors ; a ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses ; the compulsory painting of all windows, so women cannot be seen from outside their homes ; a ban on the photographing or filming of women ; a ban on women s pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops. Penalties, even for minor infractions, were brutal. For wearing fingernail polish, women had their fingers chopped off, and for the crime of adultery, women were publicly stoned to death. 2 Is there an objective basis for condemning such practices? Or is it the case that such practices are wrong only relative to the moral standards of Western societies? 3 If it is wrong for an outsider to pass judgment on another culture, then it is wrong to condemn the brutal treatment of women, or institutionalized racism, or slavery, or human sacrifice, or any other practice that is or has been condoned by one culture or another. If you believe that such practices should be universally condemned, then you do believe that it is permissible for an outsider to pass judgment on another culture. (There is an additional problem. If the normative cultural relativist is right, then it is wrong for an outsider to pass judgment on another culture only relative to the moral standards of the outsider. If it is wrong in some absolute sense for an outsider to pass judgment, then the relativist is wrong.) Let us now turn to the second question. Is the essence of morality social conformity? If the right thing for a person to do, as the relativist maintains, is whatever that person s culture believes is right, then the moral saint is the social conformist. For the relativist, the person who follows the crowd is assured of living a saintly life, while the dissident from Jesus to Martin Luther King who challenges the moral standards accepted by his or her culture, is necessarily immoral. Yet, clearly this is wrong. We cannot dismiss a dissident s criticisms simply because that person disagrees with his or her culture. It is entirely possible that the dissident is right, which means that a culture cannot be the only source of moral standards. The argument can be summarized as follows: (1) If normative cultural relativism is true, then necessarily the social conformist is moral and the dissident is immoral. (2) It is not necessarily the case that the social conformist is moral and the dissident is immoral. (3) Normative cultural relativism is false. There is a sense in which what is right in one culture may not be right in another, but all that this means is that that what people believe is right in one culture may not be what To generate classroom discussion, you might show your students Shackled Women or some other documentary film which examines the status of women in the Third World. (See Recommended Resources.) Is a patriarchal society morally inferior to an egalitarian one? Or are such societies morally equivalent?
4 people believe is right in another. This should not surprise us, because what people believe is largely a matter of their enculturation. 2. Is Morality Personal? People sometimes say What is right for me may not be right for you. What is meant by this? One possibility is personal relativism. According to this view, the moral standards that people should live by are the ones that conform to their personal moral beliefs. In fact, what makes it right for someone to do something is simply that that person believes that it is right. If you believe that it is right to recycle newspapers, then it is right for you to do this. But other people may not believe in recycling, and so it may not be right for them. In general, since different people have different moral beliefs, what is right or wrong is varies from one person to another. (It will be noticed that the only difference between personal relativism and cultural relativism is that for the cultural relativist, the right thing for a person to do is whatever that person s culture believes is right, whereas for the personal relativist, the right thing for a person to do is whatever that person believes is right.) A similar view ties morality to people s feelings rather than to their beliefs. According to moral subjectivism, moral statements describe people s feelings of approval or disapproval feelings that vary from one individual to another. This is another way of understanding what people mean by What is right for me may not be right for you. When I say that something is right, what this means is that I approve of it. When you say that something is right, what this means is that you approve of it. On this view, moral statements are no different than statements about personal taste or preference. The statement Abortion is wrong is like the statement Opera is boring or Okra tastes bad. The argument for personal relativism runs as follows: (1) Different people have different beliefs about what is right. (2) What is right for one person may not be right for another. For example, I might believe that it is right to be a vegetarian, whereas you see nothing wrong with eating meat. For me it is right to be a vegetarian, but not for you. In this sense, morality is a personal matter. The premise of the argument is true people do have different moral beliefs but does the conclusion follow? The problem is obvious: that people have different beliefs about the facts does not mean that there are no facts. For example, I might believe in the existence of God, whereas you are an atheist. In some sense, for me God exists, whereas for you God does not. But clearly there is a fact of the matter, whether or not either one of us knows what this fact is. Either it is a fact that God exists, or it is a fact that God does not exist. One of us is right and the other is wrong. In the same way, I might believe that it is right to be a vegetarian, whereas you see things differently. For me it is right to be a vegetarian, whereas for you it is not. It does not follow from this,
5 however, that there is no objective truth concerning the morality of vegetarianism. It is still possible that one of us is right and the other is wrong. The above argument, therefore, does not prove personal relativism. Subjectivism, like personal relativism, connects morality to people s subjective states. But whereas personal relativism is a theory about the nature of moral standards, subjectivism is a theory about the meaning of moral language. (The subjectivist does not tell us what is right or wrong, but rather what it means to say that something is right or wrong.) In critically evaluating these views, consider the following two questions. First, is it possible for you to be mistaken about something in morality? Or are you morally infallible? Is it, for example, possible for you to do something wrong even though you believe that it is right? Second, can you know whether to judge an action right or wrong simply by exploring your feelings? Or should your moral judgments be based upon objective considerations? Consider the first question. According to the personal relativist, what makes it right for you to do something is simply that you believe it is right. Therefore, you can t believe that it is right to do something and yet be mistaken in this belief. In this sense, you are morally infallible. Suppose, for example, you believe that it is right to bomb abortion clinics or to engage in other terrorist acts. Then, according to the relativist, this would be the right thing for you to do. The mere fact that you believe that it is right makes it right. On the other hand, if it is possible for people to be mistaken in their moral beliefs, then the relativist is wrong. There must be facts, independently of what people believe, to be mistaken about. The argument against personal relativism can be summarized as follows: (1) If personal relativism is true, then people cannot be mistaken in their moral beliefs. (2) People can be mistaken in their moral beliefs. (3) Personal relativism is false. Unlike the argument in support of personal relativism, this argument is sound. The premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from them. In a sense, what is right for me may not be right for you, but all that this means is that what I believe is right may not be what you believe is right. This is compatible with the position that there are moral facts independently of what people believe. The personal relativist may also be right in saying that you should do whatever you believe is right. What else can you do? But this doesn t mean that the mere fact that you believe that something is right makes it right, because you can make moral mistakes. Now consider the second question. Can you know whether to judge an action right or wrong simply by examining your feelings? (Couldn t an unfeeling person make correct moral judgments? If so, then moral judgments cannot simply be descriptions of our feelings.) Suppose you learn that I took my neighbor s ladder from his backyard. Can you know, just by inspecting your feelings, what to say about this incident? Or do you need to have additional information? Suppose you learn that I snuck into my neighbor s
6 yard late one night and took his ladder because I needed it to paint my ceiling. Then you would probably say that what I did was wrong. But suppose my house was on fire and I needed the ladder to rescue my child from a second-story balcony. Then you would probably say that what I did was right. For the subjectivist, however, such considerations are essentially irrelevant; the facts relevant to making moral judgments are facts about our feelings, not about the objective world. If you approve of an action, then you can truthfully say that the action is right. If you disapprove of it, then you can truthfully say that it is wrong. We might summarize this objection to subjectivism as follows: (1) If subjectivism is true, then people can know whether an action is right or wrong simply by examining their feelings. (2) People cannot know whether an action is right or wrong in this way. (3) Subjectivism is false. Whether an action is right or wrong is a fact about the action, not about our feelings or other subjective states. Because of this, the statement Abortion is wrong is importantly different from the statement Opera is boring or Okra tastes bad. Statements about personal taste or preference are statements about how people feel about things, but whether an action is right or wrong is a fact about the action itself, not about how people feel about it. For this reason, subjectivism is false. 3. Are There Moral Facts? Earlier we defined moral skepticism in a somewhat sketchy way as the view that morality is merely a matter of opinion. We can now give a more precise formulation of this theory. The skeptic maintains either that (1) there are moral facts, but these facts are subjective or conventional in nature, or that (2) there simply are no moral facts. So far, we have considered different ways of defending (1). According to the relativist, there are moral facts, but these facts are determined by the beliefs of different individuals or by the conventions established by different cultures. According to the subjectivist, there are moral facts, but these are facts about people s feelings. Other skeptics take a different route, arguing that morality has no factual basis at all. This is what is meant by moral nihilism. One way of defending moral nihilism is to draw a sharp line between facts and values. For the nihilist, morality is concerned with values, not with facts. To judge something to be good or bad, right or wrong is to ascribe a negative or a positive value to it. It is not to describe a fact about it. People, in a sense, attach values to things, but things in themselves, independently of human judgment, are neutral. For example, it is a fact that hurricanes destroy property and cause floods, injuries, and deaths. But, according to the nihilist, it is not a fact that hurricanes are bad; rather people judge hurricanes to be bad.
7 One argument for moral nihilism focuses upon the problem of establishing truth and falsity in ethics and resolving moral disagreements. Suppose you and I disagree about some moral issue, such as the morality of war. I might believe that war is morally permissible, whereas you are a pacifist. If there is objective truth in ethics, then it should be possible for us to determine who is right and who is wrong. But how can we do this? This question has no obvious answer. According to the moral nihilist, the fact that there are irresolvable moral disagreements proves that there is no objective truth in ethics. Succinctly stated, the argument runs as follows: (1) If there are moral facts, then it should be possible to prove things in ethics. (2) It is not possible to prove things in ethics. (According to a popular sentiment: Who s to say what s right? ) (3) There are no moral facts. The reasoning is clearly valid, but both premises can be challenged. Is it the case that all facts can be proven? Is it true that moral opinions cannot be rationally as well supported as other opinions? Let us concentrate on the second question. To prove something (whether inside or outside the domain of ethics) is to provide good reasons for believing it. Is it possible to provide good reasons for a moral belief? If we consider only complex moral problems, such as the morality of war, then it is tempting to accept the premise that it is impossible to prove anything in ethics. But most of the moral claims that people make are not about such complex issues, but about comparatively simple things. For example, suppose I borrowed a book from you and promised to return it the following day. Is this something I ought to do? Assuming that there are no other relevant facts to consider, don t you have good reasons for believing that I ought to return it? If I announced the next day that I loaned the book to someone else or that I sold it to a used bookstore, wouldn t you think I did something wrong, and wouldn t you have good reasons for thinking this? Most of the moral claims people make are about uncomplicated issues such as this. If we have good reasons for making such claims, then it is possible to prove things in ethics. Consider some additional examples. Might there be good reasons for believing that the following moral claims are true? What might these reasons be? 1. Your car has a dead battery, and you need a jump. Your neighbor should help you start your car. 2. You have found someone s wallet lying on a sidewalk. You ought to return it. 3. While you were shopping in a supermarket, someone backed into your car, damaging the rear bumper. This person should accept responsibility for the accident. 4. Someone at work is spreading unfounded and malicious gossip about you, and this should stop.
8 5. You suspect that your husband is having an affair. He should be honest with you. Consider the first claim. Suppose you have been a helpful neighbor. Just last week, when your neighbor s car wouldn t start, you drove her to work. Her car is now in good working condition, and she has a pair of jumper cables. Assuming that there are no other relevant facts to consider, don t you have good reasons for saying that your neighbor should help you start your car? (Of course, you might also have good reasons for saying that the above claims are false, but this doesn t count against the point that we can often produce good reasons for the moral judgments we make.) There appears to be no important sense in which morality is merely a matter of opinion. People can and often do have good reasons for the moral judgments they make, and this is all that is involved in proving that such judgments are true. If people can prove that some of their moral beliefs are true, then people don t just have moral opinions, they have moral knowledge. 4. Is There Objective Truth in Ethics? The alternative to moral skepticism is the view that morality has an objective foundation. This is known as moral objectivism. For the objectivist, moral knowledge might be compared to mathematical knowledge. Our knowledge of mathematics is not based upon our observations of the empirical world, but upon our understanding of mathematical concepts our concepts of numbers, addition, subtraction, and so on. Because we can understand such concepts, we can acquire mathematical knowledge. We can know, for example, that the square root of 625 is 25. Human beings may be unique in their ability to grasp mathematical concepts, but the facts of mathematics do not depend upon us. Even if we lacked the conceptual resources to understand it, it would still be true that the square root of 625 is 25. Similarly, our knowledge of morality is based upon our understanding of moral concepts. Because we can understand such concepts, we can acquire moral knowledge. We can know, for example, that the brutal oppression of women is wrong. Human beings may be unique in their ability to grasp moral concepts, but the facts of morality do not depend upon us. Morality, no more than mathematics, is not something that people invent. Even if people lacked the conceptual resources to comprehend it, it would still be true that the brutal oppression of women is wrong. In this module, we have built a strong case against moral skepticism. Have we not, along the way, developed a positive argument for objectivism? The following observations have emerged from our discussion: (1) It is possible for you to be mistaken about some of your moral beliefs. You might believe that something is morally acceptable, such as abortion or capital punishment, even though it is wrong. (2) There are moral beliefs, and some moral beliefs are true and others false. Moreover, it is often possible to prove that a moral belief is true by providing good reasons for believing it. (3) Whether an action is right or wrong is a fact about the action, not about our feelings or other subjective states.
9 (4) Doing the right thing sometimes requires acting contrary to culturally established conventions. For example, it would not be right to support the practice of slavery even if one lived in a slaveholding culture; rather the right thing to do would be to oppose this practice. It does not necessarily follow from any one of these statements that moral objectivism is true, but it does follow from all of these statements taken together. From (1) and (2), it follows that there are moral facts. You cannot be mistaken about something in morality, for example, unless there are facts for you to be mistaken about. From (3) and (4) it follows that the facts of morality do not depend upon us upon our subjective states or the conventions that we establish. If there are, in this sense, objective moral facts, then moral objectivism is true. 5. Glossary Moral Nihilism: The skeptical theory that there are no moral facts. Cultural Relativism: According to descriptive cultural relativism, what people believe is right or wrong varies from one culture to another. According to normative cultural relativism, moral standards themselves vary from one culture to another: the right thing for a person to do is whatever that person s culture believes is right. (For the cultural relativist, that fact that a person s culture believes that something is right makes it right for that person to do it.) Moral Objectivism: The view that there are objective moral facts. Objective moral facts are facts that hold independently of people s subjective states (beliefs and feelings) and the conventions that people establish. Moral Skepticism: The view that morality has no objective or independent foundation. For the moral skeptic, either (1) there are moral facts, but these facts are subjective or conventional in nature, or (2) there simply are no moral facts. Moral Subjectivism: The skeptical theory that moral statements describe people s feelings of approval or disapproval. Personal Relativism: The skeptical theory that the right thing for a person to do is whatever that person believes is right. (For the personal relativist, the fact that a person believes that something is right makes it right for that person to do it.) 6. Recommended Resources For a book-length discussion of moral skepticism, see Russ Shafer-Landau s Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
10 Another excellent source of information on the theories I discuss in this module is The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Seventh Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007) by James and Stuart Rachels. Many of the arguments and objections I raise have been raised, in one form or another, by other philosophers. In addition to the above sources, see Some Basic Points about Arguments in The Right Thing To Do, Fourth Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007) edited by James and Stuart Rachels. For internet resources on ethics, consult and Library/Ethics/Ethicinternet. For a defense of cultural relativism, see Ruth Benedict s In Defense of Moral Relativism, available online at DionysianBehavior. In Taking Darwin Seriously (New York: Prometheus, 1998), Michael Ruse argues that the moral sense is a product of evolution and shaped by natural selection. The documentary film Shackled Women: Abuses of a Patriarchal World (Films for the Humanities and Sciences) examines the treatment of women in several Third-World countries.
Ethical universal: An ethical truth that is true at all times and places.
Relativism Some Definitions Ethics: The philosophical inquiry into right and wrong and valuation through critical examination of human practices. Ethical universal: An ethical truth that is true at all
More informationWorld-Wide Ethics. Chapter One. Individual Subjectivism
World-Wide Ethics Chapter One Individual Subjectivism To some people it seems very enlightened to think that in areas like morality, and in values generally, everyone must find their own truths. Most of
More informationRelativism and Subjectivism. The Denial of Objective Ethical Standards
Relativism and Subjectivism The Denial of Objective Ethical Standards Starting with a counter argument 1.The universe operates according to laws 2.The universe can be investigated through the use of both
More informationWorld-Wide Ethics. Chapter Two. Cultural Relativism
World-Wide Ethics Chapter Two Cultural Relativism The explanation of correct moral principles that the theory individual subjectivism provides seems unsatisfactory for several reasons. One of these is
More information24.00: Problems of Philosophy Prof. Sally Haslanger November 16, 2005 Moral Relativism
24.00: Problems of Philosophy Prof. Sally Haslanger November 16, 2005 Moral Relativism 1. Introduction Here are four questions (of course there are others) we might want an ethical theory to answer for
More informationChapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics
Chapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics TRUE/FALSE 1. The statement "nearly all Americans believe that individual liberty should be respected" is a normative claim. F This is a statement about people's beliefs;
More informationPhilosophy of Ethics Philosophy of Aesthetics. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology
Philosophy of Ethics Philosophy of Aesthetics Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology
More informationDOES GOD EXIST? THE MORAL ARGUMENT
DOES GOD EXIST? THE MORAL ARGUMENT Is there actually such a thing as objective morality? Are right and wrong real things that all people at all times are obliged to obey or are they just matters of opinion?
More informationSame-Sex Marriage, Just War, and the Social Principles
Same-Sex Marriage, Just War, and the Social Principles Grappling with the Incompatible 1 L. Edward Phillips Item one: The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers
More informationClass 23 - April 20 Plato, What is Right Conduct?
Philosophy 110W: Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2011 Hamilton College Russell Marcus I. Nihilism, Relativism, and Absolutism Class 23 - April 20 Plato, What is Right Conduct? One question which arises
More informationNotes on Moore and Parker, Chapter 12: Moral, Legal and Aesthetic Reasoning
Notes on Moore and Parker, Chapter 12: Moral, Legal and Aesthetic Reasoning The final chapter of Moore and Parker s text is devoted to how we might apply critical reasoning in certain philosophical contexts.
More informationEthical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: Ethical Relativism: subjective objective ethical nihilism Ice cream is good subjective
Ethical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: In this lecture, we will discuss a moral theory called ethical relativism (sometimes called cultural relativism ). Ethical Relativism: An action is morally wrong
More informationHenrik Ahlenius Department of Philosophy ETHICS & RESEARCH
Henrik Ahlenius Department of Philosophy henrik.ahlenius@philosophy.su.se ETHICS & RESEARCH Why a course like this? Tell you what the rules are Tell you to follow these rules Tell you to follow some other
More informationPHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE AND META-ETHICS
The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 217 October 2004 ISSN 0031 8094 PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE AND META-ETHICS BY IRA M. SCHNALL Meta-ethical discussions commonly distinguish subjectivism from emotivism,
More informationJurisprudence of Human Cloning
Jurisprudence of Human Cloning Ayatollah as-sayyed Muhammad Saeed al-hakim [ha] Translator: Mohammad Basim Al-Ansari Jurisprudence of Human Cloning by Ayatollah as-sayyed Muhammad Saeed al-hakim [ha] Human
More informationChapter 2: Reasoning about ethics
Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics 2012 Cengage Learning All Rights reserved Learning Outcomes LO 1 Explain how important moral reasoning is and how to apply it. LO 2 Explain the difference between facts
More informationChapter 2 Ethical Concepts and Ethical Theories: Establishing and Justifying a Moral System
Chapter 2 Ethical Concepts and Ethical Theories: Establishing and Justifying a Moral System Ethics and Morality Ethics: greek ethos, study of morality What is Morality? Morality: system of rules for guiding
More informationHuman Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race. Course Description
Human Nature & Human Diversity: Sex, Love & Parenting; Morality, Religion & Race Course Description Human Nature & Human Diversity is listed as both a Philosophy course (PHIL 253) and a Cognitive Science
More informationDefining Relativism Ethical Relativism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends partially upon the beliefs and culture of the
Ethical Relativism Defining Relativism Ethical Relativism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends partially upon the beliefs and culture of the person doing the action Cultural
More informationManuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer
Ethical Relativism Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of
More informationPojman: What is Moral Philosophy?
Pojman: What is Moral Philosophy? Etymology Morals < Latin mores: Custom The traditional or characteristic norms of a people or group Ethics < Greek ethos: Character Usually the character or essential
More informationMoral Objectivism. RUSSELL CORNETT University of Calgary
Moral Objectivism RUSSELL CORNETT University of Calgary The possibility, let alone the actuality, of an objective morality has intrigued philosophers for well over two millennia. Though much discussed,
More informationTake Home Exam #1. PHI 1700: Global Ethics Prof. Lauren R. Alpert
PHI 1700: Global Ethics Prof. Lauren R. Alpert Name: Date: Take Home Exam #1 Instructions (Read Before Proceeding!) Material for this exam is from class sessions 2-7. Please write your answers clearly
More informationLuck, Rationality, and Explanation: A Reply to Elga s Lucky to Be Rational. Joshua Schechter. Brown University
Luck, Rationality, and Explanation: A Reply to Elga s Lucky to Be Rational Joshua Schechter Brown University I Introduction What is the epistemic significance of discovering that one of your beliefs depends
More informationPsychological and Ethical Egoism
Psychological and Ethical Egoism Wrapping up Error Theory Psychological Egoism v. Ethical Egoism Ought implies can, the is/ought fallacy Arguments for and against Psychological Egoism Ethical Egoism Arguments
More information[name] [course] [teaching assistant s name] [discussion day and time] [question being answered] [date turned in] Cultural Relativism
5 [name] [course] [teaching assistant s name] [discussion day and time] [question being answered] [date turned in] Cultural Relativism In James Rachels s chapter The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, he
More informationMORAL RELATIVISM. A. What is it for something to be relative to something else? 1. Many things are relative to one thing or another.
MORAL RELATIVISM A. What is it for something to be relative to something else? 1. Many things are relative to one thing or another. Examples: a) Tallness is relative. What it means to be a tall skyscraper
More informationMORAL RELATIVISM. A. What is it for something to be relative to something else? 1. Many things are relative to one thing or another.
MORAL RELATIVISM A. What is it for something to be relative to something else? 1. Many things are relative to one thing or another. Examples: a) Tallness is relative. What it means to be a tall skyscraper
More informationNew Chapter: Ethics and Morality
Intro to Philosophy Phil 110 Lecture 21: 3-27 Daniel Kelly I. Mechanics A. Upcoming Readings 1. Today we ll discuss a. Rachels, Subjectivism in Ethics b. Rachel s,the Challenge of Cultural Relativism 2.
More informationTHE NATURE AND VALUE OF CRITICAL THINKING
1 THE NATURE AND VALUE OF CRITICAL THINKING This book is a practical guide to critical thinking. It might seem unnecessary to be reading a guide to something you do all the time and are probably already
More informationEvaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule
UTILITARIAN ETHICS Evaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule A dilemma You are a lawyer. You have a client who is an old lady who owns a big house. She tells you that
More informationReasons Community. May 7, 2017
Reasons Community May 7, 2017 Welcome to Reasons! May 7, 2017 Join us as we examine apologetics, worldview, science and faith topics through thought-provoking teaching, lively discussion, and a variety
More informationReview of Nathan M. Nobis s Truth in Ethics and Epistemology
Review of Nathan M. Nobis s Truth in Ethics and Epistemology by James W. Gray November 19, 2010 (This is available on my website Ethical Realism.) Abstract Moral realism is the view that moral facts exist
More informationEthics. The study of right or correct behavior
Ethical Concepts Ethics The study of right or correct behavior The Ethics Chart Ethics Objectivism Relativism Absolutism Contextual Conventionalism Subjectivism Absolutism 4 Divine Command Theories God
More informationb. Use of logic in reasoning; c. Development of cross examination skills; d. Emphasis on reasoning and understanding; e. Moderate rate of delivery;
IV. RULES OF LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE A. General 1. Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a form of two-person debate that focuses on values, their inter-relationships, and their relationship to issues of contemporary
More informationPhilosophy 1100 Honors Introduction to Ethics
Philosophy 1100 Honors Introduction to Ethics Lecture 2 Introductory Discussion Part 2 Critical Thinking, Meta-Ethics, Philosophy, and Religion An Overview of the Introductory Material: The Main Topics
More information-1 Peter 3:15-16 (NSRV)
Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision 6. Can we be good without God? Sunday, March 3, 2013, 10 to 10:50 am, in the Parlor Leader: David Monyak Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who
More informationKantian Deontology. A2 Ethics Revision Notes Page 1 of 7. Paul Nicholls 13P Religious Studies
A2 Ethics Revision Notes Page 1 of 7 Kantian Deontology Deontological (based on duty) ethical theory established by Emmanuel Kant in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Part of the enlightenment
More information'Ears to hear'? Mark C. Chavez, vice president. September 15, 2009
Page 1 of 5 'Ears to hear'? Mark C. Chavez, vice president September 15, 2009 The 2009 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly made grievous decisions that will not help the denomination
More informationBeyond Objectivism and Subjectivism. Derek Parfit s two volume work On What Matters is, as many philosophers
Beyond Objectivism and Subjectivism Derek Parfit s two volume work On What Matters is, as many philosophers attest, a significant contribution to ethical theory and metaethics. Peter Singer has described
More informationSituational Ethics Actions often cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Suppose someone moves their hand rapidly forward, is that action right or wrong? The
Ethical Relativism Situational Ethics Actions often cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Suppose someone moves their hand rapidly forward, is that action right or wrong? The answer seems to depend on other
More information2 FREE CHOICE The heretical thesis of Hobbes is the orthodox position today. So much is this the case that most of the contemporary literature
Introduction The philosophical controversy about free will and determinism is perennial. Like many perennial controversies, this one involves a tangle of distinct but closely related issues. Thus, the
More informationEthics is subjective.
Introduction Scientific Method and Research Ethics Ethical Theory Greg Bognar Stockholm University September 22, 2017 Ethics is subjective. If ethics is subjective, then moral claims are subjective in
More information(i) Morality is a system; and (ii) It is a system comprised of moral rules and principles.
Ethics and Morality Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms having to do with custom, habit, and behavior. Ethics is the study of morality. This definition raises two questions: (a) What is morality?
More informationEmotivism. Meta-ethical approaches
Meta-ethical approaches Theory that believes objective moral laws do not exist; a non-cognitivist theory; moral terms express personal emotional attitudes and not propositions; ethical terms are just expressions
More informationA lonelier contractualism A. J. Julius, UCLA, January
A lonelier contractualism A. J. Julius, UCLA, January 15 2008 1. A definition A theory of some normative domain is contractualist if, having said what it is for a person to accept a principle in that domain,
More informationA Case against Subjectivism: A Reply to Sobel
A Case against Subjectivism: A Reply to Sobel Abstract Subjectivists are committed to the claim that desires provide us with reasons for action. Derek Parfit argues that subjectivists cannot account for
More informationWHAT IS ETHICS? KEY DISTINCTIONS:
WHAT IS ETHICS? KEY DISTINCTIONS: What comes to mind when you think of the word ethics? Where and in what context do you most often hear the word ethics? What types of people do you think study ethics?
More informationWLUML "Heart and Soul" by Marieme Hélie-Lucas
Transcribed from Plan of Action, Dhaka 97 WLUML "Heart and Soul" by Marieme Hélie-Lucas First, I would like to begin with looking at the name of the network and try to draw all the conclusions we can draw
More informationVIEWING PERSPECTIVES
VIEWING PERSPECTIVES j. walter Viewing Perspectives - Page 1 of 6 In acting on the basis of values, people demonstrate points-of-view, or basic attitudes, about their own actions as well as the actions
More informationThe dangers of the sovereign being the judge of rationality
Thus no one can act against the sovereign s decisions without prejudicing his authority, but they can think and judge and consequently also speak without any restriction, provided they merely speak or
More informationPhilosophical Ethics. The nature of ethical analysis. Discussion based on Johnson, Computer Ethics, Chapter 2.
Philosophical Ethics The nature of ethical analysis Discussion based on Johnson, Computer Ethics, Chapter 2. How to resolve ethical issues? censorship abortion affirmative action How do we defend our moral
More informationRichard van de Lagemaat Relative Values A Dialogue
Theory of Knowledge Mr. Blackmon Richard van de Lagemaat Relative Values A Dialogue In the following dialogue by Richard van de Lagemaat, two characters, Jack and Jill, argue about whether or not there
More informationLecture 2: What Ethics is Not. Jim Pryor Guidelines on Reading Philosophy Peter Singer What Ethics is Not
Lecture 2: What Ethics is Not Jim Pryor Guidelines on Reading Philosophy Peter Singer What Ethics is Not 1 Agenda 1. Review: Theoretical Ethics, Applied Ethics, Metaethics 2. What Ethics is Not 1. Sexual
More informationAn Introduction to Ethics / Moral Philosophy
An Introduction to Ethics / Moral Philosophy Ethics / moral philosophy is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the
More informationConsciousness might be defined as the perceiver of mental phenomena. We might say that there are no differences between one perceiver and another, as
2. DO THE VALUES THAT ARE CALLED HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE INDEPENDENT AND UNIVERSAL VALIDITY, OR ARE THEY HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY RELATIVE HUMAN INVENTIONS? Human rights significantly influence the fundamental
More informationTHE CASE OF THE MINERS
DISCUSSION NOTE BY VUKO ANDRIĆ JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE JANUARY 2013 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT VUKO ANDRIĆ 2013 The Case of the Miners T HE MINERS CASE HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD
More informationBasics of Ethics CS 215 Denbigh Starkey
Basics of Ethics CS 215 Denbigh Starkey 1. Introduction 1 2. Morality vs. ethics 1 3. Some ethical theories 3 a. Subjective relativism 3 b. Cultural relativism 3 c. Divine command theory 3 d. The golden
More informationWhaT does it mean To Be an animal? about 600 million years ago, CerTain
ETHICS the Mirror A Lecture by Christine M. Korsgaard This lecture was delivered as part of the Facing Animals Panel Discussion, held at Harvard University on April 24, 2007. WhaT does it mean To Be an
More informationEating Right: The Ethics of Food Choices and Food Policy Philosophy 252 Spring 2010 (Version of January 20)
Eating Right: The Ethics of Food Choices and Food Policy Philosophy 252 Spring 2010 (Version of January 20) Instructor Andy Egan andyegan@philosophy.rutgers.edu Office & Office Hours: 1 Seminary Place
More informationCapital Punishment, Restoration and Moral Rightness
Journal of Applied Philosophy, Capital Vol. 19, Punishment, No. 3, 2002 Restoration and Moral Rightness 287 Capital Punishment, Restoration and Moral Rightness GARY COLWELL ABSTRACT In order to show that
More informationMILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2005
1 MILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2005 Some people hold that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice and objectionable for that reason. Utilitarianism
More informationHARE S PRESCRIPTIVISM
Michael Lacewing Prescriptivism Theories of what morality is fall into two broad families cognitivism and noncognitivism. The distinction is now understood by philosophers to depend on whether one thinks
More informationEthical non-naturalism
Michael Lacewing Ethical non-naturalism Ethical non-naturalism is usually understood as a form of cognitivist moral realism. So we first need to understand what cognitivism and moral realism is before
More informationA. The Three Main Branches of the Philosophical Study of Ethics. 2. Normative Ethics
A. The Three Main Branches of the Philosophical Study of Ethics 1. Meta-ethics 2. Normative Ethics 3. Applied Ethics 1 B. Meta-ethics consists in the attempt to answer the fundamental philosophical questions
More informationChapter 3 Disputes and Definitions
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 3 Disputes and Definitions 3.1 Disputes I: Attitudes and Beliefs At this point we must deal with one more consequence that the recognition
More informationPhil 114, April 24, 2007 until the end of semester Mill: Individual Liberty Against the Tyranny of the Majority
Phil 114, April 24, 2007 until the end of semester Mill: Individual Liberty Against the Tyranny of the Majority The aims of On Liberty The subject of the work is the nature and limits of the power which
More information2. Public Forum Debate seeks to encourage the development of the following skills in the debaters: d. Reasonable demeanor and style of presentation
VI. RULES OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE A. General 1. Public Forum Debate is a form of two-on-two debate which ask debaters to discuss a current events issue. 2. Public Forum Debate seeks to encourage the development
More informationCover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation
Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/38607 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Notermans, Mathijs Title: Recht en vrede bij Hans Kelsen : een herwaardering van
More informationSelf-Evidence and A Priori Moral Knowledge
Self-Evidence and A Priori Moral Knowledge Colorado State University BIBLID [0873-626X (2012) 33; pp. 459-467] Abstract According to rationalists about moral knowledge, some moral truths are knowable a
More informationChallenges to Traditional Morality
Challenges to Traditional Morality Altruism Behavior that benefits others at some cost to oneself and that is motivated by the desire to benefit others Some Ordinary Assumptions About Morality (1) People
More informationCRUCIAL TOPICS IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF EXTERNAL REASONS
CRUCIAL TOPICS IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF EXTERNAL REASONS By MARANATHA JOY HAYES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
More informationDISCUSSION THE GUISE OF A REASON
NADEEM J.Z. HUSSAIN DISCUSSION THE GUISE OF A REASON The articles collected in David Velleman s The Possibility of Practical Reason are a snapshot or rather a film-strip of part of a philosophical endeavour
More informationIII. RULES OF POLICY (TEAM) DEBATE. A. General
III. RULES OF POLICY (TEAM) DEBATE A. General 1. All debates must be based on the current National High School Debate resolution chosen under the auspices of the National Topic Selection Committee of the
More informationMGT610 Business Ethics
MIDTERM EXAMINATION MGT610 Business Ethics BY VIRTUALIANS.PK Question # 01 Mark: 1 The three major types of ethical issues include except? Communication issues Systematic issues Corporate issues Individual
More informationChapter 12: Areas of knowledge Ethics (p. 363)
Chapter 12: Areas of knowledge Ethics (p. 363) Moral reasoning (p. 364) Value-judgements Some people argue that moral values are just reflections of personal taste. For example, I don t like spinach is
More informationTHE UNBELIEVABLE TRUTH ABOUT MORALITY
THE UNBELIEVABLE TRUTH ABOUT MORALITY Bart Streumer b.streumer@rug.nl 9 August 2016 Forthcoming in Lenny Clapp (ed.), Philosophy for Us. San Diego: Cognella. Have you ever suspected that even though we
More informationReason 3: The Moral Argument
Reason 3: The Moral Argument Recently in London and New York, atheist groups advertised on buses, asking the question, Why believe in a god? They answer their own question, saying Just be good for goodness
More informationTara Smith s Ayn Rand s Normative Ethics: A Positive Contribution to the Literature on Objectivism?
Discussion Notes Tara Smith s Ayn Rand s Normative Ethics: A Positive Contribution to the Literature on Objectivism? Eyal Mozes Bethesda, MD 1. Introduction Reviews of Tara Smith s Ayn Rand s Normative
More informationHAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ
HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ BY JOHN BROOME JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM I DECEMBER 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JOHN BROOME 2005 HAVE WE REASON
More informationRawlsian Values. Jimmy Rising
Rawlsian Values Jimmy Rising A number of questions can be asked about the validity of John Rawls s arguments in Theory of Justice. In general, they fall into two classes which should not be confused. One
More informationKANTIAN ETHICS (Dan Gaskill)
KANTIAN ETHICS (Dan Gaskill) German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of utilitarianism. Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder,
More informationUse the following checklist to make sure you have revised everything.
Use the following checklist to make sure you have revised everything. The origins and value of the universe The origins of the universe including: religious teachings about the origins of the universe
More informationWhat is the "Social" in "Social Coherence?" Commentary on Nelson Tebbe's Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age
Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 31 Issue 1 Volume 31, Summer 2018, Issue 1 Article 5 June 2018 What is the "Social" in "Social Coherence?" Commentary on Nelson Tebbe's Religious
More informationChapter 15. Elements of Argument: Claims and Exceptions
Chapter 15 Elements of Argument: Claims and Exceptions Debate is a process in which individuals exchange arguments about controversial topics. Debate could not exist without arguments. Arguments are the
More informationPlantinga, Van Till, and McMullin. 1. What is the conflict Plantinga proposes to address in this essay? ( )
Plantinga, Van Till, and McMullin I. Plantinga s When Faith and Reason Clash (IDC, ch. 6) A. A Variety of Responses (133-118) 1. What is the conflict Plantinga proposes to address in this essay? (113-114)
More informationChapter 2. Moral Reasoning. Chapter Overview. Learning Objectives. Teaching Suggestions
Chapter 2 Moral Reasoning Chapter Overview This chapter provides students with the tools necessary for analyzing and constructing moral arguments. It also builds on Chapter 1 by encouraging students to
More informationHas Nagel uncovered a form of idealism?
Has Nagel uncovered a form of idealism? Author: Terence Rajivan Edward, University of Manchester. Abstract. In the sixth chapter of The View from Nowhere, Thomas Nagel attempts to identify a form of idealism.
More informationPostmodernism. Issue Christianity Post-Modernism. Theology Trinitarian Atheism. Philosophy Supernaturalism Anti-Realism
Postmodernism Issue Christianity Post-Modernism Theology Trinitarian Atheism Philosophy Supernaturalism Anti-Realism (Faith and Reason) Ethics Moral Absolutes Cultural Relativism Biology Creationism Punctuated
More informationA Rational Solution to the Problem of Moral Error Theory? Benjamin Scott Harrison
A Rational Solution to the Problem of Moral Error Theory? Benjamin Scott Harrison In his Ethics, John Mackie (1977) argues for moral error theory, the claim that all moral discourse is false. In this paper,
More informationIS ACT-UTILITARIANISM SELF-DEFEATING?
IS ACT-UTILITARIANISM SELF-DEFEATING? Peter Singer Introduction, H. Gene Blocker UTILITARIANISM IS THE ethical theory that we ought to do what promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
More informationA Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo
A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo "Education is nothing more nor less than learning to think." Peter Facione In this article I review the historical evolution of principles and
More informationthat the only way a belief can be justified is if it is based on sufficient evidence. However,
1 Should there exist a criteria for formulating and justifying a belief? W.K. Clifford believes that the only way a belief can be justified is if it is based on sufficient evidence. However, William James
More informationLogic, Truth & Epistemology. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology
Logic, Truth & Epistemology Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics
More informationWhatever Happened to Good and Evil? RUSS SHAFER-LANDAU
Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? RUSS SHAFER-LANDAU For My Parents, Bart and Barbara Landau TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE PART I: THE STATUS OF MORALITY Chapter One: The Nature of the Problem
More informationAction in Special Contexts
Part III Action in Special Contexts c36.indd 283 c36.indd 284 36 Rationality john broome Rationality as a Property and Rationality as a Source of Requirements The word rationality often refers to a property
More informationKant, Deontology, & Respect for Persons
Kant, Deontology, & Respect for Persons Some Possibly Helpful Terminology Normative moral theories can be categorized according to whether the theory is primarily focused on judgments of value or judgments
More informationNaturalist Cognitivism: The Open Question Argument; Subjectivism
Naturalist Cognitivism: The Open Question Argument; Subjectivism Felix Pinkert 103 Ethics: Metaethics, University of Oxford, Hilary Term 2015 Introducing Naturalist Realist Cognitivism (a.k.a. Naturalism)
More informationThe Challenge of Cultural Relativism. James Rachels 1986 Ethics & Contemporary Issues Professor Douglas Olena
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism James Rachels 1986 Ethics & Contemporary Issues Professor Douglas Olena Different Moral Codes *How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes Darius, King of Persia
More informationPilate's Extended Dialogues in the Gospel of John: Did the Evangelist alter a written source?
Pilate's Extended Dialogues in the Gospel of John: Did the Evangelist alter a written source? By Gary Greenberg (NOTE: This article initially appeared on this web site. An enhanced version appears in my
More information