Summary of Logical Flaws in the Discussion Stoppers

1. Summary of Logical Flaws in the Discussion Stoppers Stopper #1 People disagree on solutions to moral issues. __________________ 1. Fails to recognize that experts in many areas disagree on key issues in their fields. 2. Fails to recognize that there are many moral issues on which people agree. 3. Fails to distinguish between disagreements about principles and disagreements about facts. Stopper #2 Who am I to judge others? __________________ 1. Fails to distinguish between the act of judging and being a judgmental person. 2. Fails to distinguish between judging as condemning and judging as evaluating. 3. Fails to recognize that sometimes we are required to make judgments Stopper #3 Ethics is imply a private matter. _________________ 1. Fails to recognize that morality is essentially a public system. 2. Fails to note that personally-based morality can cause major harm to others. 3. Confuses moral choices with individual or personal preferences. Stopper #4 Morality is simply a matter for individual cultures to decide. ___________________ 1. Fails to distinguish between descriptive and normative claims about morality. 2. Assumes that people can never reach common agreement on some moral principles. 3. Assumes that a systemis moral because a majority in a culture decides it is moral.

2. What is Ethics? • Branch of Philosophy: • What is ….. • Good Other Branches? What is…. • Knowledge • In the world • Beautiful • Our Relationship to Other People

3. What is 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? • (b) What is the study of morality?

4. What is Morality? • morality can be defined as: a system of rules for guiding human conduct, and principles for evaluating those rules. Two points are worth noting in this definition: • (i) morality is a system; and • (ii) it is a system comprised of moral rules and principles. • moral rules can be understood as "rules of conduct," which are very similar to "policies."

6. Remember: • what is “ethics”? • what are “morals”? • In groups: • Think of 5 very different morals (rules or codes of ethic) – write these down. • What are the different ways to categorize these? • What are different kinds of codes? • What is their roles purpose?

7. Table 2-1  Four Features of Gert’s Moral System Public The rules are known to all of the members. Informal The rules are informal, not like formal laws in a legal system. Rational The system is based on principles of logical reason accessible to all its members. Impartial The system is not partial to any one group or individual.

8. Way to categorize Ethical Theory: • Scope and source of Ethical rules • Who and how they apply • Character of conduct • Character of the action or DUTY • Consequences of actions • What the action DOES

9. Scope and source of Ethical rules • Scope (who applies) • Absolutism / Relativism • Subjectivism • Source (where they come from) • Naturalism • Egoism • Determinism

10. Scope (of rules) Absolutism Objectivism (some) values are “objective” do not depend on the observer • Universal Laws of conduct • Aristotelian Virtues • Patience, truthfulness, courage, modesty • Require universal “judge” or law “giver” • E.g. the golden rule, etc. • Always, never…

11. Scope Relativism …. • Stresses need for tolerance and understanding • Suspends judgment on practices in other cultures (when we don’t understand them) • Sometimes reasonable people may differ on what’s morally acceptable • “There are no universal moral rules” • “Good” functions within a particular culture. • “People are bound by the moral rules of their culture.”

12. Scope There is moral diversity • Descriptive (As a matter of fact) • Claims different cultures have different moral values • Normative • Claims that each culture is right unto itself

13. Scope Relativism cultural relativism • Different cultures have different beliefs about what constitutes morally right and wrong behavior. moral relativism • no universal standard of morality is possible because different people have different beliefs about what is right and wrong. anything goes.

14. Discussion Stopper # 4: Morality is Simply a Matter for Individual Cultures to Decide • According to this view, a moral system is dependent on, or relative to, a particular culture or group. • There are some very serious problems with this view, which is called ethical relativism. • To understand the problems inherent in this position, it is useful to distinguish between two positions involving relativism: cultural relativism and moral relativism.

15. Discussion Stopper #4 Continued - Cultural Relativism • At the base of cultural relativism is the following assumption: • (A) Different cultures have different beliefs about what constitutes morally right and wrong behavior. • This assumption (A) is essentially descriptive in nature.

16. Cultural Relativism Continued • Although Assumption A (the view that different groups have different conceptions about what is morally right and morally wrong behavior) is widely accepted, some social scientists have argued that the reported differences between cultures have been greatly exaggerated. • Other social scientists have suggested that all cultures may possess certain universal core moral values.

17. Cultural Relativism Continued • Even if Cultural Relativism (assumption A) is true, does it logically imply the further claim? • (B) What is morally right or wrong for members of a culture or group can be determined only by that culture or group. • Note that (B), unlike (A), is a normative claim. Also note that to move from (A) to (B) is to move from cultural relativism to moral relativism.

18. Moral Relativism • Moral relativism asserts that no universal standard of morality is possible because different people have different beliefs about what is right and wrong. • From this inference, relativists appear to further suggest that, in matters of morality, anything goes. • But this principle of reasoning is problematic because it is essentially incoherent and inconsistent.

19. Moral Relativism Continued • Does it follow that individuals who reside outside a particular culture can never make any judgments about the behavior of those who live within that culture? • Consider that in many tribes in West Africa a ritual of female circumcision is still practiced. • Although this practice has been a tradition for many generations, some females living in tribes that still perform this ritual on teenage girls have objected.

20. Moral Relativism Continued • Assume that the majority of residents in that culture approve of female circumcision. • Would it be inappropriate for those who lived outside of West Africa to claim that the treatment of young women in those tribes is morally wrong simply because they are not members of the particular culture? • If we embrace that view, does it follow that a culture can devise any moral scheme it wishes as long as the majority approve it?

21. Source of Morals

22. Source of morals Naturalism • All events are adequately explained by “nature” • What is “nature”? Material world, mind, first cause

23. Source: External vs. Internal Do we have Choice? • Determinism (external?) • Freewill? • I am what I am and have no choice in my drives • The world is predetermined, mechanical • Existentialism (not an “ethical theory” but…) • Camus “The Stranger” • Satre “The Final Judgment”

24. People always act in their self-interest • But what is a “self-interest” (community, evolutionary, family) and desirable in long-term? • Self sacrifice? Is this justifiable as “self-interest”? Egoism Internal?

26. Emotivism • Logical Positivism: Only “facts” have meaning • How to determine if moral statements are “true” • E.g. “Murder is wrong” (what is the evidence?) • (Some) moral statements are (just) emotion

27. Character Deontology (Deon = Duty) • Decisions should be made only by considering one's duties and the rights of others. • a priori moral obligations • ends do not justify the means.

28. Character The Categorical Imperative Can be stated as follows: Never treat another human being merely as a means, but always as an end in himself or herself.

29. Consequentialism • What the action DOES • Who / how many / how much good • the ends can justify the means • decisions are judged in terms of their consequences

31. Consequent… • Utilitarianism • the useful is the good • Consequent of… • the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the end and aim of all social and political institutions. --Bentham • virtue is defined and enforced by its tendency to promote the highest happiness of the universe. --J. S. Mill

32. OVERLY Simple Way to categorize Ethical Theories: • Scope and source of Ethical rules • Who and how they apply • Character of conduct • Deontology: Deon = Duty • Consequences of actions • What the action DOES FINER GRAINED Analysis?

33. Four Ethical Theories • Consequence-based • Duty-based • Contract-based • Character-based

34. Consequence-based Ethical Theories • Some argue that the primary goal of a moral system is to produce desirable consequences or outcomes for its members. • On this view, the consequences (i.e., the ends achieved) of actions and policies that provide the ultimate standard against which moral decisions must be evaluated. • So if choosing between acts A or B, the morally correct action will be the one that produces the most desirable outcome.

35. Consequence-based Theories (Continued) • In determining the best ourcome, we can ask the question, whose outcome? • Utilitarians argue that it is the consequences of the greatest number of individuals, or the majority, in a given society that deserve consideration in moral deliberation.

36. Consequence-based Theories: (Utilitarianism continued) • According to the utilitarian theory: • An individual act (X) or a social policy (Y) is morally permissible if the consequences that result from (X) or (Y) produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of persons affected by the act or policy.

37. Consequence-based Theories: (Utilitarianism continued) • Utilitarians draw on two principles in defending their theory: • (i) The principle of social utility • (ii) The belief that social utility can be measured by the amount of happiness produced

38. Utilitarianism (continued) • Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham assume: • (a) All people desire happiness. • (b) Happiness is an intrinsic good that is desired for its own sake.

39. Utilitarianism (continued) • According to John Stuart Mill: • The only possible proof showing that something is audible is that people actually hear it; the only possible proof that something is visible is that people actually see it; and the only possible proof that something is desired is that people actually desire it.

40. Act Utilitarianism • According to act utilitarians: • An act, X, is morally permissible if the consequences produced by doing X result in the greatest good for the greatest number of persons affected by X.

41. Criticism of Act Utilitarianism • Critics reject the emphasis on the consequence of individual acts. • They point out that in our day-to-day activities, we tend not to deliberate on each individual action as if that action were unique. • Rather, we are inclined to deliberate on the basis of certain principles or general rules that guide our behavior.

42. Criticism of Act Utilitarianism (continued) • Consider some principles that may guide your behavior as a consumer. • Each time that you enter a store, do you ask yourself "shall I steal item X in at this particular time?" • Or have you already formulated certain general principles that guide your individual actions, such as a principle to the effect: "It is never morally permissible to steal?"

43. Rule Utilitarianism • Some utilitarians argue that it is the consequences that result from following rules or principles, not the consequences of individual acts, that are important. • According to rule utilitarianism: • An act, X, is morally permissible if the consequences of following the general rule (Y), of which act X is an instance, would bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.

44. Criticism of Rule Utilitarianism • Critics tend to attack one or both of the following aspects of utilitarian theory: • (I) Morality is ultimately tied to happiness or pleasure. • (II) Morality can ultimately be determined by consequences (of either acts or policies). • Critics of utilitarianism ague that morality can be grounded neither in consequences nor in happiness.

45. Duty-based Ethical Theories • Immanuel Kant argued that morality must ultimately be grounded in the concept of duty or obligations that humans have to one another. • Morality can never in the consequences of human actions. • Thus morality has nothing to do with the promotion of happiness or the achievement of desirable consequences.

46. Duty-based Ethical Theories (Continued) • Kant rejects utilitarianism in particular, and all consequentialist ethical theories in general. • He points out that, in some instances, performing our duties may result in our being unhappy and may not necessarily lead to consequences that are considered desirable. • Theories in which the notion of duty or obligation serve a foundation for morality are called deontological theories because they derive their meaning from the Greek root deon, which means duty.

47. Duty-based Ethical Theories (Continued) • Kant has two distinct arguments • (1) We have a rational nature • (2) Human beings are ends-in-themselves, not means to ends.

48. Rule Deontology • For Kant, morality conforms to a standard or objective test, a principle that he calls the Categorical Imperative. • Kant's imperative has a number of variations, one of which directs us to: • Act always on that maxim or principle (or rule) which ensures that all individuals will be treated as ends-in-themselves and never merely as a means to an end.

49. Rule Deontology (Continued) • Another variation of the categorical imperative can be paraphrased as: • Always act on that maxim or principle (or rule) which can be universally binding, without exception, for all human beings.

50. Categorical Imperative • Kant believed that if everyone followed the categorical imperative, we would have a genuinely moral system. • It would be a system based on two essential principles: universality and impartiality. • In such as system, every individual would be treated fairly since the same rules would apply universally to all persons.