The branches of philosophy

2. The branches of philosophy • Philosophy is the study of the most fundamental questions. • Philosophy’s 5 branches: • 1. Metaphysics • 2. Epistemology • 3. Logic • 4. Aesthetics • 5. Ethics

3. What is Ethics? Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the branch of philosophy that studies morality. Morality is the sphere of human behavior that generates questions of right and wrong conduct. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ethikos, which derives from the word ethos (habit, or custom).

4. 4 AREAS OF ETHICS • Ethics is divided into 4 major areas. • Each of these directions is studied by ethicists. • Value Theory • Normative Ethics • Metaethics • Applied Ethics

5. 1. Value Theory • The area of ethics that tries to determine what is valuable in and of itself; what makes life good? • Is it happiness? • Is it getting what you want? • Is it one? • Is it many? • Is it virtue?

6. 2. Normative Ethics The area of ethics concerned with determining the set of principle(s) of right action. • There are 2 types of moral theories: Deontological and teleological. • Deontological. Theories that propose universal rules. • Teleological. Theories based on the outcome of actions.

7. From where to start? • It is difficult to know the starting point of morality: • Intuition • Nature • Reason • Religion

8. Normative Ethics • The Divine Command Theory: Acts are right because God commands them. • Utilitarianism: The greatest happiness for the greatest number. • Deontology: Use rules consistently without any contradictions. • Social Contract: rules that people agree to follow on the condition that others follow as well. • Prima Facie Duties: Several important duties. When they conflict, we decide which takes precedence. • Virtue Ethics: Right is what the virtuous person does. • Feminist Ethics: Ethics has been the business of men for too long.

9. 3. Metaethics • Meta-Ethics asks about the nature, of ethics. • Moral ontology • Moral epistemology • Moral semantics • Moral psychology • Meta-ethical questions:

10. Various Theories of Meta-ethics Cognitivismvs. Non-Cognitivism: Cognitivism: ethical sentences express actual propositions that can be true or false. Cognitivism embodies many views: moral realism: ethical sentences express propositions about mind-independent facts. moral subjectivism: ethical sentences express propositions about peoples’ attitudes or opinions. Moral statements are subjectively true.

11. Non-cognitivism: moral statements don’t describe properties, don’t make statements that could be true or false. When people utter moral sentences they are expressing non-cognitiveattitudes more similar to desires, approval or disapproval, like “Murder? Aaaarrrrgh!”

12. Cognitivists hold that moral judgments express beliefs: truth-evaluable mental states that represent moral facts. • Non-cognitivists hold that moral judgments express some other sort of non-truth-evaluable, non-representational mental states.

13. Moral Realism: (cognitivist): moral statements are true by virtue of certain features of the world. Moral Subjectivism: (cognitivist): moral statements are true because the subject believes them to be true (or false). (Meta-ethical) Moral Relativism: (cognitivist): morality is relative to a certain civilization. Moral Objectivism: (cognitivist): moral claims are true (or false) independently of our thinking them so. We value kindness because kindness is good—it is not good because we value it. 

14. Emotivism: (noncognitivist): moral language is not fact stating but rather expressive of feeling. Prescriptivism: (noncognitivist): moral claims are commands. A prescriptivist who says that abortion is wrong, for example, is not arguing that abortion has a moral property of wrongness. Rather, he is prescribing that one not commit abortion

15. Moral nihilism: a meta-ethical theory according to which nothing is morally right or wrong. Some nihilists argue that moral statements such as “Slavery is wrong” or “Saving innocent lives is good” are neither true nor false because there are no moral facts in the world that would make such statements right or wrong. Another form of nihilism, known as error theory, which argues the following: • When we make moral statements, we always assume that something can be right or wrong. • But because nothing can be right or wrong, our statements are mistaken. • Consequently our moral statements are errors.

16. 4.Applied Ethics • Typically, moral philosophers regard this branch of ethics one that deals with more particular problems, such as issues in medicine, sports, business, etc. • Selecting a theory to solve particular problems. • However, there is disagreement about which theory is correct. • Some philosophers propose that we address such problems without considering a specific theory.

17. Review • Value Theory: What is good in itself? What’s a good life? • Normative: Theory and principles of right/wrong conduct. • Metaethics: What is ethics? Made up or discovered? • Applied ethics: Those who live ethical problems and try to resolve them.

18. DOING ETHICS WELL

19. Legality versus Morality • Moral questions are distinct from legal questions. • Of course, moral issues often have legal implications. • Child labor is morally unacceptable not because it is illegal. • Slavery was immoral even when it was legal. • The Nazis did lots of immoral things that were legal. • Producing and Selling cigarettes is legal. But is it moral? • So: It is unhelpful to determine whether something is morally right or wrong by looking to the laws.

20. Expediency versus Moral Reasons • Something to keep separate are moral reasons and expediency. • Expediency relates to our personal reasons for doing things. • We use animals for food, clothing, research, entertainment because it is convenient. • When defending slavery, people used to cite the fact that it supported the economy as a reason to keep it. It True, it supported the economy. Those who benefited from slavery such as traders or plantation owners found it convenient. Convenience does not help us with the moral questions .

21. Prescriptive versus Descriptive Claims • Another important distinction is between descriptive and prescriptive claims. • Christopher McDougall Born to Run(2009) • Supporters of meat-eating often say that we are meant to eat meat (nature?). What does this tell us about whether it is right or wrong to eat humans alive? Nothing.

22. …A ChallengeWho are We to Judge?

23. MORAL RELATIVISM: the concept that morality is relative. Objectivism says that all people are under the same moral principles. Moral principles are objective. Relativismsays that societies decide what is moral. Who are we to judge?

24. Moral Relativism does not say that in morality anything goes. • It does not mean there are no moral rules. • Moral rules are relative. • It states that what’s moral for a society could be immoral for another. • So there is no way to say that one society is moral and the other immoral. • Morality is relative to the particular society.

25. Who Are We to Judge? • The Callatians, an Indian people, ate their dead people, while ancient Greeks cremated theirs. They viewed each other’s practice as immoral. So moral relativism concludes that morality is a matter of what peoples take it to be.

26. But, is morality relative? It seems that people’s beliefs differ, not moral principles. Callatiansbelieved their dead would continue living if ingested. Greeks believed flesh could be corrupted and so cremated the dead. Often, peoples’ differences are not moral but cultural. Aabortion? Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. We disagree over whether a fetus is a person.

27. Implications of Relativism

28. If relativism is true, you must admit there was nothing wrong about Nazi morality or slavery!

29. Think About it… Those who fought against segregation and slavery were moral reformers. If you are a moral relativist, you cannot praise moral reformers. In fact, you should condemn them.

30. Those who try to better the moral principles of a society try to change the moral rules of that society! Moral progress implies moving toward an ideal, objective, moral standard. But this is what relativism denies! There is no objective morality.

31. Also, relativism says that the social group you belong to determines morality, right? But ask yourself: to which social group do I belong? Answer: you belong to many groups.

32. Finally, some might say relativism is valid because we should have tolerance and respect other people’s practices and beliefs. But, if we apply this principle universally, then tolerance is ruled out by relativism because you are not a relativist but an objectivist.

33. Assessing Ethical Theories

34. In ethics we need to determine what makes things right or wrong. Which theory is best? A theory’s principles must provide a compelling explanation of why certain things are right while others are wrong. Adequate ethical theory needs to satisfy certain criteria. The more fully the theory satisfies all these criteria the better the theory.

35. 1. Completeness: theory should be able to address completely moral concepts. If the theory leaves something out that must be included, then that theory is faulty. Hedonistic theories, don’t account for justice. • 2. Explanatory Power: The theory must give us insight into what makes something moral or immoral. It must help us understand the difference between right and wrong.

36. 3. Practicability: how useful is a theory? - Clear and precise moral claims. If the theory’s principles are vague, then it isn’t a practical theory: “don’t hurt people unless they deserve it.” Vague. - Moral guidance to ordinary people. - Principles should not create conflict. Imagine a friend lives in the US illegally. Should you turn him in? A practicable theory must be able to resolve your dilemma.

37. 4. Moral confirmation: a theory must give correct answers to moral questions. Does it work? A theory is morally confirmed if we have good reasons to consider it true. This criterion resembles the scientific method. In science we begin testing a theory’s hypotheses by experiment and observation.

38. SOME WAYS NOT TO ANSWER MORAL QUESTIONS, AND THE IDEAL MORAL JUDGMENT

39. Moral judgments and personal preferencesSome people like classical music; others do not. This is disagreement in preferences. Moral disagreements, disagreements over right or wrong, are not the same. If I say abortion is always wrong and you say abortion is never wrong, then you are denying what I affirm. The point: right or wrong require reasons. Cannot be determined just by finding out about the personal preferences of people.

40. Moral judgments and feelings Some philosophers think words like right and wrong are empty. This position suggests it doesn’t matter one way or the other. But morality matters. So, one must not use personal feelings to determine what’s right and wrong.

41. Thinking it is so does not make it so This should be obvious: upon reflection you might be surprised. You might think same-sex marriage is immoral, but when you reason logically, you might arrive at the opposite conclusion.

42. Irrelevance of statistics Some people think that the more people believe something, the truer something is. Religious people may say that God exists because the majority of the world’s population believes in a god. Clearly this is not true. If the majority holds that capital punishment is wrong, that doesn’t make it wrong.

43. The appeal to a moral authority: Many people think that there is a moral authority, e.g., a God. However, appealing to such an authority creates problems...

44. THE IDEAL MORAL JUDGMENT There are different concepts that an ideal moral judgment must satisfy

45. Conceptual clarity: if someone tells us that euthanasia is always wrong we could not determine whether that statement is true before we understand what euthanasia is. Concepts need clarity. • In the case of abortion, for example, is a fetus is a person?

46. Information: We answer moral questions by having knowledge of the world. For example, in order to know why eating meet is morally wrong, we must know the facts: e.g. animals feel pain and like us do not want to feel pain. They are killed, Chopped up, packaged, and sold. Many people ignore, or want to ignore, these facts.

47. Rationality: must be able to recognize the connection between different ideas. The best way is to use logic. Sally thinks all abortions are morally wrong, but she recently has had an abortion. Sally is not being rational or logical.

48. Impartiality: correct answer to moral questions must be impartial. Impartiality is related to justice: the principle that justice is the similar, and injustice the dissimilar, treatment of similar individuals, e.g. If causing suffering to humans is wrong, but it is not wrong in the case of animals, this is not impartial. - we should not consider irrelevant characteristics such as the color of the skin, the color of hair, nationality, height, age, species, and so on.

49. Coolness: the idea is that the more emotionally charged we are, the more likely we are to reach a mistaken moral conclusion, while the cooler or calm we are, greater the chances that we will avoid mistakes.

50. VALID MORAL PRINCIPLES besides information, impartiality, conceptual clarity, etc., ideal moral judgment must be based on valid or correct moral principles. Ideally, one wants not only to make the correct moral judgment but also to make it for the correct reasons.