Int r od uct io n t o

Phi lo sop hy
Moral Philosophy- beginners
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 What is Moral Philosophy concerned with?
 Making moral choices, how we decide what is
moral/immoral, right and wrong
 What do we and society see as the ‘correct’
values to have?
 The topic of right and wrong action is perhaps
the most important single issue in the discipline
of philosophy, Ted Honderich
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Moral Philosophers look
at reasons behind
decisions about what is
right and wrong and
debate whether these
reasons are justified.
 If we don’t have good
enough reasons against
x, then we don’t have
any real justification in
condemning it.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 The problem:
 Morality as a ‘matter of taste’ (subjective
morality) vs moral standards (objective
morality)
 Society needs certain standards of behaviour
to run smoothly. If morality as a ‘matter of
opinion’ is correct, then laws are no more than
a method of social control.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 I BELIEVE THAT TORTURING CHILDREN IS
WRONG. I’M SURE YOU DO TOO.
 HOWEVER, IS THIS SOME OBJECTIVE
FACT THAT IT IS WRONG, OR IS IT JUST
THAT WE BOTH FEEL THAT IT IS WRONG?
 THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE MORAL
FACTS DEBATE.
 DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO SAY THAT SOME
MORAL JUDGEMENTS ARE TRUE AND
SOME ARE FALSE?
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 ‘Murder is wrong’
 Think of facts to prove whether this is true or
false.
 Part of the problem about whether we can say
moral statements are true or false is that we
are talking about what we OUGHT to do. This
means making value judgements and some
people say this is totally different from making
factual decisions, Mel Thompson, ‘Philosophy:
An Introduction’
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 G.E. Moore (1873-
1958) and Hume
(1711-1776) both
said that there is NO
OUGHT FROM IS.
 Facts say what is
 Values say what
ought to be
 How can we get an
‘ought’ from an ‘is’
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Hume:
 Said our moral attitudes couldn’t come from
matters of fact experience) as we could have
knowledge of all the facts and still not react
e.g. we could have knowledge of someone
being tortured and not react
 You would think most people would react and
try and stop it.
 Hume says this is not due to our knowledge but
to our human nature
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 OBJECTIVISM: the belief that a moral
statement is true or false. Thus moral
statements can be judged objectively.
 Objectivists need to explain what makes
a moral statement true or false.
 Main theories that attempt to do this:
 Theological Moral Realism, Teleological
Account and the Utilitarian Account.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 THEOLOGICAL MORAL REALISM:
 Moral judgements are true or false by
virtue of how they fit in with God’s will.
 Simple- if it fits in with God’s will it is
TRUE, if not it is FALSE.
 PROBLEMS:
 God’s existence, what is God’s will and
the Euthyphro dilemma
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 (i) God’s existence- see metaphysics! Problem
with this theory if you don’t believe God exists!
Dostoyevsky, ‘If God doesn’t exist then
anything is permitted’
 (ii) God’s will- How do we know for sure what
this is? The Bible?
 (iii) EUTHYPRO DILEMMA- even if you do
believe in God and believe you know what God
wants there is STILL a problem!
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 EUTHYPRO- name of the writings where Plato
discusses this problem
 DILEMMA- EITHER GOD FORBIDS
SOMETHING BECAUSE IT IS MORALLY
WRONG, OR IT IS MORALLY WRONG
BECAUSE GOD FORBIDS IT
 If God forbids it because it is morally wrong,
things are right or wrong independent of God.
There is already a reason for it being wrong,
God just agrees, so why do we need God for
morality?
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 OR: It is morally wrong
because God forbids it.
What is right or wrong
seem to be dependent
on what God feels like.
So God could have
made murder morally
right, and on this view it
would have been.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Teleological Account:
 Moral judgements are true or false by virtue of
how they fit in with HUMAN NATURE.
 Those who believe this think that human nature
is aiming towards something and that there are
certain universal features of human nature.
 THIS MEANS THAT CERTAIN THINGS WILL
BE BAD FOR EVERYONE
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Teleological account
 Aristotle had a particular view of human nature
 Thought that everyone wanted to ‘flourish’.
Only a certain way of living lets us flourish
 Aristotle thought that the good life for humans
would involve virtuous action and practical
wisdom. This would lead to well being. Ted
Honderich
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Eudaimonia- ‘having
a good guardian
spirit’, the state of
having an objectively
desirable life
(universally agreed).
Different from
modern ‘happiness’
(subjective)
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Ted Honderich, ‘Aristotle thought that the good
life for humans would involve virtuous action
and practical wisdom. This would lead to well
being’
 Plato: morality is sufficient for eudaimonia,
Aristotle: external goods (fortune) are also
necessary.
 Virtue= being able to feel and act in the right
way at the right time, e.g. feeling generous to a
poor person and giving them money, Nigel
Warburton
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Problems with the teleological account of
morality:
 Different views on what true human nature is
and what it is aiming towards.
 Do we really understand human nature?
 What features do all human beings have in
common?
 Even if we bring biology into it, it's not clear
that biology has anything to do with morality.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Utilitarian account of morality
 MORAL JUDGEMENTS ARE
TRUE OR FALSE BY
VIRTUE OF HOW MUCH
PAIN AND PLAESURE THEY
BRING.
 WHATEVER PRODUCES
THE GREATEST AMOUNT
OF HAPPINNESS FOR THE
GREATEST NUMBER IS
GOOD.
 PAIN AND PLAESURE=
OBJECTIVE AND
MEASURABLE
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 So a community could get together and
decide whether an action has contributed
to the greatest overall happiness or not.
 HOWEVER, this makes moral decisions
depend on which community you live in.
So you can know what is right/wrong in
your society, but it will not necessarily be
the same in every society. Adam Morton
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Problems with utilitarianism:
 Can we calculate happiness? Is it short or long
term happiness? What levels of consequences
do we take into account? Are pleasure/pains
what we should use to decide whether n action
is right/wrong (KANT WOULD DISAGREE)
 Will the decisions be objective? Community
ideas differ. Yet it is thought that objective facts
about morality do not change. If murder is
wrong, then surely it is ALWAYS WRONG
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 SUBJECTIVISM
 Subjectivists believe moral statements are
neither true or false, but subjective
 Subjectivists have to explain what moral
judgements are for. What are we doing when
we make a moral judgement?
 Subjectivism is a form of MORAL RELATIVISM
 Moral relativism- different value systems in
different communities, no true moral standards.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Does the existence of moral
disagreement prove subjectivism is true?
 NO!
 Ted Honderich ‘There is disagreement in
other fields of study e.g. History, but that
does not mean people call into question
the objective occurrence of historical
events’.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Different forms of
subjectivism:
emotivism and
prescriptivism
 EMOTIVISM: Moral
judgements do not
describe a factual
state of affairs, moral
judgements are only
expressions of taste
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Emotivism seems appealing as it allows people
to hold their own values independently of what
people think.
 People have different tastes in music so why
not in morality?
 Emotivists believe there is no way to prove
moral statements are true or false
 Emotivism linked with LOGICAL POSITVISM-
statements only meaningful if they could be
verified.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 EMOTIVISM
 A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) A moral claim such as
‘house breaking’ is wrong is literally
meaningless. It is not true by definition and
cannot be proved true by observation. It is
merely an expression of personal taste
 Emotivism often called the ‘hurrah-boo’ theory
of morality. Statements of moral belief are no
more than grunts of approval/disapproval
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 PRESCRIPTIVISM- similar to emotivism,
denies that moral judgements have a truth
value
 Different to emotivists as they say moral
statements are more than just expressions of
emotion
 Moral statements should be taken as
prescriptions or advice
 Of course advice varies from person to person
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Problems with forms of moral relativism:
 How do you deal with atrocities such as the
HOLOCAUST, Bosnia, Dunblane shootings
etc. Most people feel outrage at these things, a
subjectivist HAS NOTHING TO JUSTIFY THIS
OUTRAGE.
 If you met someone who approved of the
Dunblane killings would you be willing to say
that you just disagreed with them because of
personal taste?
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 THE FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM
DEBATE
 HUGE PROBLEM- (i) metaphysical and
empirical and (ii) ethical and attitudinal
 (i) METAPHYSICAL and EMPIRICAL- Are
human choices and actions causally
determined or free?
 (ii) ETHICAL AND ATTITUDINAL- Implications
for our moral, personal and social lives
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 What is determinism?
 A serious threat to ethics!
 The thesis that ALL our mental states
and acts (choices and decisions) and all
our actions are EFFECTS
NECESSITATED BY PRECEDING
CAUSES
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Determinism:
 Since its ‘all in the genes’ then ethics is
futile!
 Our actions are fixed- we’re just doing as
we’re programmed to
 So are we just large mammals made
according to a genetic master plan about
which we can doing nothing?
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 DETERMINISM:
 Moral education may be hopeless as it
fights against a fixed nature.
 We can enforce a ban on long hair, but
we can’t on growing hair altogether!
(we’re programmed to grow hair)
 Determinism= it’s not up to us, we’re just
programmed that way
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 DETERMINISM:
 Monastic order that forbids sexual desire:
cannot be obeyed as it’s just NOT UP TO US
IF WE FEEL SEXUAL DESIRE OR NOT.
 Hormones just boil and sexual desires bubbles
up
 CHEMICAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE
GENETICALLY ENCODED
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Maybe we can TRY to
control it:
 Yoga and drugs!
 Usually any
INJUNCTION NOT TO
FEEL DESIRE IS
USELESS!
 Question: are all ‘moral
rules’ similarly futile
because of this genetic
pre-programming?
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 SIMON BLACKBURN
(Professor of Philosophy
at Cambridge) says NO!
 Whatever our genetic
make-up programs us to
do, there is room for
‘INPUT
RESPONSIVENESS’
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Input-responsiveness:
 Leaves us room to vary our behaviour in
response to what we feel/touch/see.
 Leaves us to vary our desires in accordance
with what we learn
 Leaves us room to be influenced by
information from and attitudes of others
 Blackburn ‘it makes us responsive to the moral
climate’
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Blackburn: ‘ genetics programs us to be
flexible’ !
 Inflexible traits (growing hair) are NOT
INPUT RESPONSIVE as no matter what
we believe or feel the hair will go on
growing.
 Our beliefs/desires are NOT LIKE THAT-
they vary with the moral climate
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 So a child may be disposed to become
kind and loving in a kind loving
environment, vicious and aggressive in a
vicious and aggressive one
 Leads back to nature/nurture debate
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 REMEMBER-What does determinism
imply?
 Our futures are in fact FIXED and
unalterable just as the past is.
 Truth/falsity of thesis depends upon our
NATURES, not upon
desires/hopes/feelings.
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 What is metaphysical freedom?
 NOT BEING COMPLETELY GOVERNED BY
DETERMINISTIC CAUSAL LAWS.
 Those who support it say: THERE ARE NO
LAWS, WHETHER OF MIND OR BRAIN OR
BOTH THAT COMPLETELY SETTLE WHAT
WE WILL CHOOSE TO DO.
 Also- we have a kind of power to choose which
path the future will take (free will)
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 Why freedom and determinism is important for
moral philosophers:
 We assume that we can only hold people
morally responsible for what they CHOOSE to
do (free actions)
 Usually we are excused from doing x if we can
prove that we had NO CHOICE in doing x (we
couldn’t have done otherwise)
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 FREEWILL AND DETERMINISM ADVANCED
 Some philosophers (incompatibilists) believe
that if determinism is true it:
 Destroys moral responsibility, undermines
personal relationships and ruins all our life
hopes as it makes ACTIONS UNFREE.
 Thus they believe that freedom and
determinism are INCOMPATIBLE
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 FREEWILL AND DETERMINISM ADVANCED
 Incompatibilsts who ALSO believe
DETERMINISM IS FALSE believe that some
actions are morally responsible are termed
libertarians
 INCOMPATIBILISTS who also believe that
DETERMINISM IS TRUE, thus moral
responsibility is an ILLUSION- ‘hard
determinists’ ( like William James)
Mo ral Ph il osophy-
begin ners
 FREEWILL AND DETERMINISM ADVANCED
 Compatibilists- determinism has NO EFFECT
ON FREEDOM AND MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY. Freedom and determinism
are compatible.
 Some of these philosophers do not believe in
determinism, and if it is true they think that it
doesn’t imply that we are NOT FREE AND
RESPONSIBLE.