Moral Philosophy

Philosophy is Greek for “love of knowledge”, and consists of: Metaphysics- the study of reality Epistemology- the study of how we know

things Moral Philosophy- the study of right and

wrong, the good life

Consequentialism

Consequentialism The philosophy of moral conduct which states

that whether an act is morally right or wrong depends on the consequences of that act

The “ends justify the means” (the end result matters more than how you accomplished the act)

Deontological Deontological

From the Greek word for “duty” Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is the most

famous proponent. This philosophy of moral conduct holds that one should

act “only according to those maxims that one can at the same time will become universal law”

Kant emphasizes the absolute necessity of separating genuine morality from all empirical considerations- morals must be developed from pure reason, apart from experiences

Kant’s theory suggests that decisions should be made solely by considering one’s moral duties and obligations and the rights of others.

The ends do not justify the means…ever! (Do the right thing no matter what!)

SOME MORAL CONTROVERSIES

oAbortionoWaroWelfare

Abortion Arguments(Pro-Choice)

Everybody has rights over his or her own body. It follows from these rights that at the stage when the embryo is essentially part of the mother’s body, the mother has a right to make her own uncoerced decision on whether she will have an abortion or not.

Making abortion illegal will lead to disastrous results whereby women will continue to have abortions, but will do so unsafely, causing greater harm.

Abortion ArgumentsPro-Life

Murder is wrong. Murder is the taking of innocent life. An embryo is an identifiable life, and the most innocent life possible. Therefore abortion is like infanticide and is not only immoral, but should be illegal.

What if my own mother had an abortion? I cannot logically approve of my mother ending my life, and if I cannot will that my own mother would have aborted me, how can I deny others the right to life?

War ArgumentsPro-War

If you wish for peace, prepare for war. The best way to maintain safety for you and your loved ones is to have the military ability and will to defeat any enemy, even if that means nuclear attacks.

Wars are unfortunate but necessary to defend our loved ones and innocent people. Just wars are permitted so long as the innocent are not directly harmed, it is in defense of human life, and the good outweighs the bad.

War Arguments(Anti-War)

The buildup of the military and nuclear weapons only leads to more wars and destruction. Therefore, if we truly want peace, we should invest our time and our money into creating peace, not more weapons.

In modern warfare, it is impractical and impossible to distinguish between enemy combatants and innocent civilians. Therefore, no war can fit the criteria of a just war, and we should therefore be pacifists.

Welfare Arguments(Anti-Welfare)

Everybody has the right to take on only those financial obligations that they wish, to be free to engage only in those financial relationships that they want. “It’s my money and I should be able to do with it I want, the government should let me have my money, and not re-distribute it to other people.”

Giving money to those who have not earned it only encourages laziness and irresponsibility.

Welfare Arguments(Pro-Welfare)

Justice demands that every citizen should enjoy, so far as it is possible, to develop his or her talents to their greatest ability. But doing so requires equal access to education and health care. Therefore the government should tax more money from the rich and use it to provide top-level education and healthcare to those who live in poverty.

Better education and health care raises the quality of life for all people, reducing crime and other social problems.

Moral Controversies

Are these arguments logical? Do they make sense?

Which of these arguments are correct? Which ones are incorrect?

How do we decide which ones are correct?

What is the basis of our decisions?

Incommensurability(Definition Part I)

The truth of the matter is that these moral arguments are incommensurable.

Incommensurability comes to us from science, and basically means that two things cannot be compared because they do not share anything in common. For example, you cannot compare a distance in kilometers with the heat of a fire because you cannot convert meters to degrees.

This also works with theories- it occurs when you can not determine which theory is more accurate because they share nothing in common.

Incommensurability(Definition Part II)

Incommensurability occurs in moral arguments when opposing sides are both based on valid premises, and are logically argued, but there exists no rational way to determine the value of one premise over another.

We hope that we can, as individuals, find a rational answer to these questions that are universal and can be found regardless of who is arguing the point.

We end up arguing past each other because we cannot find common ground.

Where we’re at:(from Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue © 1984)

We no longer have a common reference point to determine moral issues. We refer to “rights” and “duties” and “consequences”, but there is no way to rationally decide between our starting premises. It seems to come down simply to what we prefer.

We are left at a place of moral relativism (you have your morals and I have mine) and moral emotivism (saying kindness is good is only saying “kindness, yay!” or that murder is bad is only saying “murder, yuck!”)- we base our moral decisions simply on opinion.

Where we’re at:(Fact-Value Distintion)

Fact/Value Distinction: The fact-value distinction is the idea that

we can make a distinction between what really is (fact) and what should be (value).

Facts describe what can be discovered by science, math, reason, etc. (e.g., water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom)

Values describe opinions, what people think ought to happen (e.g. water ought to be protected from environmental pollution).

Where we’re at:(How we settle moral conflicts) The only way to settle our moral conflicts

is to obtain power (Nietzsche’s “will to power”). We need to gain enough power to see that our views are put into place and keep the other side from gaining any power to change them.

To achieve power, we need to be good at rhetoric (the art of persuasion). Because we cannot refer to any common, rational moral framework, we need only to be adept (good) at persuading people to our viewpoint.

What’s wrong with this?

We still tend to think that certain things are right or wrong, and certain things should be right or wrong for all people.

Logically, relativism and emotivism don’t hold up: The statement that all non-verifiable truth claims

are relative is itself a non-verifiable truth claim. If this indeed a non-verifiable truth claim, then it

is simply relative, and therefore cannot be said to be true.

How did this happen? In western society, Catholic Christianity was

the dominant understanding of how the universe, and even the physical world, worked. The Church told us: what kind of people we should be how to act and what was right and wrong.

The Protestant Reformation, begun by Martin Luther and Henry VIII, undermined the Catholic Church’s dominance.

The Scientific Revolution also undermined the Church’s authority- DOUBT replaced FAITH as the cornerstone of people’s worldview.

How did this happen? Without a common reference point, we were left to

find new ways of deciding morality:

Option 1: John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism: (Consequentialism) “Do so whatever brings the greatest amount of happiness

to the greatest number of people.” But what is happiness? And what does this allow?

Option 2: Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative: (Deontological) “Do only that which you could will for everyone to do.” But this could allow for a rule to “persecute all those who

hold false religious beliefs” (immoral) or “always eat mushrooms on Mondays” (trivial)

What we left behind:Aristotle Part I

Aristotle Began with the idea that humans are born

imperfect Believed that humans had an ideal goal (or a

purpose, or essential nature) that could be achieved

Thought that moral imperatives were directions to help humans reach that goal

Therefore morality takes on the objective character of other disciplines, a practical concern over how to reach the goal, like:

What we left behind:Aristotle Part II

For Aristotle, learning morality is like: Learning to play football Learning to play music Learning to act Learning to build a house Learning to drive Learning to do well at school

For each: We are not able to do these things from birth, on our own there is a concrete goal to achieve there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve that goal it takes work to achieve that goal there are role models and instructors who help us to achieve that

goal and there are certain character traits that help achieve that goal

What we left behind:Aristotle Part III

Virtue Ethics: A Teleological approach to Morality

“Telos” is the Greek word for goal, therefore it is a goal-based ethics

To reach that telos, certain character traits are needed to reach the goal; these character traits are called “virtues”

To develop these virtues, we have to undertake certain practices and follow certain disciplines

To guide us in these practices, we rely upon role models and guides to help us reach the goal

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics Originated in ancient Chinese philosophy, popularized

in the West by Plato and Aristotle Says that human beings should identify and practice

those behaviors that tend toward happiness

Virtue Terms: Eudemonia- Greek for “happiness” or “flourishing” Phronesis- Greek for “practical wisdom” which helps a

person to identify and practice those behaviors that tend toward happiness

Virtue- from Greek word arete, means “excellence”. Any character trait that benefits its possessor to achieve eudemonia

Virtue Ethics

Not only is it a matter of learning how to do the right thing, it is a matter of thinking the right way about morality If human nature as it starts is flawed, then our

reasoning about morality also needs to be trained and developed

This is why the modern moral philosophy fails: It takes away any goal to aim for, therefore

removing the objective nature of moral discussion

It leaves the imperfect human reasoning as the decider of moral issues

Virtue Ethics

But what is the human telos? What is the proper role model for

humans? What is the nature, or purpose, or telos,

for humans? Is there even one? Are there many?