Philosophical Ethics

thinking about right and wrong

George MatthewsSpring 2016

F This slide show presents a series of philosophicaltheories on the nature of and justification for valuejudgments about what is right and what is wrong.

F Each of these theories has had many supportersthroughout history and each continues to havesupporters now.

F In evaluating each of these theories consider how wellsupported it is by the argument given as well as anypositive and negative implications it may have.

F This slide show presents a series of philosophicaltheories on the nature of and justification for valuejudgments about what is right and what is wrong.

F Each of these theories has had many supportersthroughout history and each continues to havesupporters now.

F In evaluating each of these theories consider how wellsupported it is by the argument given as well as anypositive and negative implications it may have.

F This slide show presents a series of philosophicaltheories on the nature of and justification for valuejudgments about what is right and what is wrong.

F Each of these theories has had many supportersthroughout history and each continues to havesupporters now.

F In evaluating each of these theories consider how wellsupported it is by the argument given as well as anypositive and negative implications it may have.

F This slide show presents a series of philosophicaltheories on the nature of and justification for valuejudgments about what is right and what is wrong.

F Each of these theories has had many supportersthroughout history and each continues to havesupporters now.

F In evaluating each of these theories consider how wellsupported it is by the argument given as well as anypositive and negative implications it may have.

F This slide show presents a series of philosophicaltheories on the nature of and justification for valuejudgments about what is right and what is wrong.

F Each of these theories has had many supportersthroughout history and each continues to havesupporters now.

F In evaluating each of these theories consider how wellsupported it is by the argument given as well as anypositive and negative implications it may have.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism

Ruth Benedict1887 – 1948

Cultural Relativism

Ruth Benedict1887 – 1948

“The trouble withlife isn’t that thereis no answer, it’sthat there are somany answers.”

Cultural Relativism

Ruth Benedict1887 – 1948

“The trouble withlife isn’t that thereis no answer, it’sthat there are somany answers.”

Ruth Benedict was an Americananthropologist whose studies ofother cultures convinced her thatthere was no one set of universallyvalid values.

Cultural Relativism

Ruth Benedict1887 – 1948

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

Cultural Relativism

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

Relativism claims that the wholeidea of universally valid values ismistaken, since value judgmentsdepend on one’s perspective.Although this may seem to be anappealing approach to valuejudgments, it has its problems.

Cultural Relativism

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

The major argument for culturalrelativism asserts that the fact ofcultural diversity negates thepossibility of their being universalvalues. But is this really validreasoning?

Cultural Relativism

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

The premise of this argument iscertainly true. But then whatfollows from this fact?

Cultural Relativism

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

Note that the conclusion makesa much stronger claim than thepremise does. It says that becausewe disagree on something nobodycould possibly be correct. But thisjust doesn’t follow, hence thisargument is INVALID.

Cultural Relativism

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

Not only is the main argumentfor relativism invalid, this positionalso implies that nothing is justplain wrong – not even genocide –as long as somebody believes thatit is acceptable.

Cultural Relativism

We all disagree about the meaningof terms such as “right” and ”wrong.”

Thus nothing is truly right or wrong,only right or wrong from a particularperspective.

the cultural differences argument

But what if different cultures agreedeep down on basic values even ifthey may implement those valuesin widely divergent ways?

What values do cultures share?

What values do cultures share?

images from Peter Menzel,Material World: A Global Family

Portrait

What values do cultures share?

China

What values do cultures share?

Japan

What values do cultures share?

Mali, West Africa

What values do cultures share?

America (1980’s)

What values do cultures share?

Saudi Arabia

What values do cultures share?

India

What values do cultures share?

Cuba

Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory

Saint Augustine354 – 430

Divine Command Theory

Saint Augustine354 – 430

“A thing is good andpleasant only becauseit is connected to Him.Use it apart from itsSource, and it will cometo taste bitter. ”

Divine Command Theory

Saint Augustine354 – 430

“A thing is good andpleasant only becauseit is connected to Him.Use it apart from itsSource, and it will cometo taste bitter. ”

Augustine converted to Christianity as anadult and then went on to become oneof the most influential Christian writersof all times; his ideas made an indeliblemark on the young religion. He defendedthe idea that God’s will determines whatis right and wrong.

Divine Command Theory

Saint Augustine354 – 430

The only way for moral commands tobe objective and binding is for them tohave been issued by an absolute moralauthority.

There are some objective and bindingmoral commands, some things we justshouldn’t do.

So there must be an absolute moral au-thority and this is God.

the argument from moral authority

Divine Command Theory

The only way for moral commands tobe objective and binding is for them tohave been issued by an absolute moralauthority.

There are some objective and bindingmoral commands, some things we justshouldn’t do.

So there must be an absolute moral au-thority and this is God.

the argument from moral authority

Divine command theory arguesthat we can only make senseof moral ideas if they are basedon the commands of an ultimatemoral authority.

Divine Command Theory

The only way for moral commands tobe objective and binding is for them tohave been issued by an absolute moralauthority.

There are some objective and bindingmoral commands, some things we justshouldn’t do.

So there must be an absolute moral au-thority and this is God.

the argument from moral authority

This seems like a strong claim, butsome things seem like they are justwrong no matter what – such askilling babies for fun.

Divine Command Theory

The only way for moral commands tobe objective and binding is for them tohave been issued by an absolute moralauthority.

There are some objective and bindingmoral commands, some things we justshouldn’t do.

So there must be an absolute moral au-thority and this is God.

the argument from moral authority

Although this argument is valid,there is a difficult problem withtrying to base moral rules ondivine commands.

Divine Command Theory

The only way for moral commands tobe objective and binding is for them tohave been issued by an absolute moralauthority.

There are some objective and bindingmoral commands, some things we justshouldn’t do.

So there must be an absolute moral au-thority and this is God.

the argument from moral authority

If God says that murder iswrong, does this mean that if Hehad said murder was OK, wouldthis make it so? If not, then howcan God be the source of moralrules?

Do values depend on authority or does legitimate authority depend on values?

Do values depend on authority or does legitimate authority depend on values?

Do values depend on authority or does legitimate authority depend on values?

Natural Law Theory

Natural Law Theory

Thomas Aquinas1225 – 1274

Natural Law Theory

Thomas Aquinas1225 – 1274

“The natural law isnothing else than therational creature’sparticipation in theeternal law. ”

Natural Law Theory

Thomas Aquinas1225 – 1274

“The natural law isnothing else than therational creature’sparticipation in theeternal law. ”

Aquinas held that being ethical involvedliving up to one’s potential as a self-governing, rational being, whose passionsare held in check. He followed Aristotlein thinking that all natural things havean “end” or natural goal built-in to themalthough unlike Aristotle he thought thatthis end was built-in to us by God.

Natural Law Theory

Thomas Aquinas1225 – 1274

Human beings have a set of built-infunctions and capacities.

Realizing these natural functions andcapacities is better than not doingso.

So human nature provides a guidefor ethical action.

the argument from moral authority

Natural Law Theory

Human beings have a set of built-infunctions and capacities.

Realizing these natural functions andcapacities is better than not doingso.

So human nature provides a guidefor ethical action.

the argument from moral authority

Natural law theory claims thatsome things are inherently wrong:those things that violate thenatural functions and capacitiesbuilt in to us.

Natural Law Theory

Human beings have a set of built-infunctions and capacities.

Realizing these natural functions andcapacities is better than not doingso.

So human nature provides a guidefor ethical action.

the argument from moral authority

Is what is natural always what isbest?

Natural Law Theory

Human beings have a set of built-infunctions and capacities.

Realizing these natural functions andcapacities is better than not doingso.

So human nature provides a guidefor ethical action.

the argument from moral authority

Isn’t it up to us to decide what isright and what is wrong, whateverhuman nature may tell us?

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Edward Burtynsky, Manufactured Landscapes

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Edward Burtynsky, Manufactured Landscapes

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Edward Burtynsky, Manufactured Landscapes

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Edward Burtynsky, Manufactured Landscapes

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Edward Burtynsky, Manufactured Landscapes

Do values come from nature or from human choices?

Edward Burtynsky, Manufactured Landscapes

Psychological Egoism

Psychological Egoism

Max Stirner1806 – 1856

Psychological Egoism

Max Stirner1806 – 1856

“For me you are nothingbut – my food, even asI too am fed upon andturned to use by you.”

Psychological Egoism

Max Stirner1806 – 1856

“For me you are nothingbut – my food, even asI too am fed upon andturned to use by you.”

Max Stirner was a German philosopherwho held that all actions are bydefinition self-centered since we all mustact on the basis of our own plans andideas. Perhaps he was a product of hisown times, the early days of industrialcapitalism in Europe when workers wereruthlessly exploited in appalling condi-tions as documented by Charles Dickensand Karl Marx.

Psychological Egoism

Max Stirner1806 – 1856

All decisions are made by individualsbased on their own understandingand interests.

Thus all decisions made by anyonemust be self-serving and anyapparently altruistic action musthave an underlying selfish motive.

in defense of psychological egoism

Psychological Egoism

All decisions are made by individualsbased on their own understandingand interests.

Thus all decisions made by anyonemust be self-serving and anyapparently altruistic action musthave an underlying selfish motive.

in defense of psychological egoism

Psychological egoism claims thatwe cannot, by definition, act forthe sake of others.

Psychological Egoism

All decisions are made by individualsbased on their own understandingand interests.

Thus all decisions made by anyonemust be self-serving and anyapparently altruistic action musthave an underlying selfish motive.

in defense of psychological egoism

If this is the case then moralitywould be a pointless thing to tryto follow.

Psychological Egoism

All decisions are made by individualsbased on their own understandingand interests.

Thus all decisions made by anyonemust be self-serving and anyapparently altruistic action musthave an underlying selfish motive.

in defense of psychological egoism

But doesn’t this theory paint anexcessively cynical view of humanbeings? We can certainly interpretall action in terms of hiddenmotives, but does this mean thatis all that moves us?

Ethical Egoism

Ethical Egoism

Ayn Rand1905 – 1982

Ethical Egoism

Ayn Rand1905 – 1982

“Self-sacrifice? But itis precisely the self thatcannot and must not besacrificed.”

Ethical Egoism

Ayn Rand1905 – 1982

“Self-sacrifice? But itis precisely the self thatcannot and must not besacrificed.”

Ayn Rand was a highly influential novelist whoemigrated from Russia to the U.S. Shedefended the capitalist idea that the good ofall was only to be achieved by ignoring thedemands of others and pursuing selfish gain.Among her contemporary followers are AlanGreenspan and Ron Paul who named his sonRand after her.

Ethical Egoism

Ayn Rand1905 – 1982

The most important human value isthe value of the individual.

Acting for the sake of others requiresdenying the value of the individual.

Thus one should never act for thesake of others.

Rand’s argument against altruism

Ethical Egoism

The most important human value isthe value of the individual.

Acting for the sake of others requiresdenying the value of the individual.

Thus one should never act for thesake of others.

Rand’s argument against altruism

Aren’t there also values to befound in cooperative activity?

Ethical Egoism

The most important human value isthe value of the individual.

Acting for the sake of others requiresdenying the value of the individual.

Thus one should never act for thesake of others.

Rand’s argument against altruism

Is life really a “zero sum game,”in which my benefit requires yourloss?

Ethical Egoism

The most important human value isthe value of the individual.

Acting for the sake of others requiresdenying the value of the individual.

Thus one should never act for thesake of others.

Rand’s argument against altruism

Is it always rational to ignoreothers’ interests?

Social Contract Theory

Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes1588 – 1674

Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes1588 – 1674

Without enforceable socialrules we should expect“continual fear, and dangerof violent death; And thelife of man, solitary, poor,nasty, brutish, and short.”

Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes1588 – 1674

Without enforceable socialrules we should expect“continual fear, and dangerof violent death; And thelife of man, solitary, poor,nasty, brutish, and short.”

Thomas Hobbes was the first modern politicalphilosopher. He thought that social rules –moral and political – should be based on self-interest. We all have an interest in living underthe rule of law rather than in the anarchy ofthe “state of nature.”.

Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes1588 – 1674

We owe allegiance to rules only if theyserve our interests.

Social rules are in our best interests tofollow since living by them is better thanfending for ourselves.

So we should follow the basic rules ofsociety and trade some individual libertyfor the rule of law.

In Defense of the Social Contract

Social Contract Theory

We owe allegiance to rules only if theyserve our interests.

Social rules are in our best interests tofollow since living by them is better thanfending for ourselves.

So we should follow the basic rules ofsociety and trade some individual libertyfor the rule of law.

In Defense of the Social Contract

We all share basic interests suchas life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness.

Social Contract Theory

We owe allegiance to rules only if theyserve our interests.

Social rules are in our best interests tofollow since living by them is better thanfending for ourselves.

So we should follow the basic rules ofsociety and trade some individual libertyfor the rule of law.

In Defense of the Social Contract

In a state of nature we havegreater liberty, but also muchgreater insecurity than in society‘.

Social Contract Theory

We owe allegiance to rules only if theyserve our interests.

Social rules are in our best interests tofollow since living by them is better thanfending for ourselves.

So we should follow the basic rules ofsociety and trade some individual libertyfor the rule of law.

In Defense of the Social Contract

Even if we may have an interestin accepting basic rules, what ifthe payoff for cheating on theserules is high enough to tempt usto cheat?

Social Contract Theory

We owe allegiance to rules only if theyserve our interests.

Social rules are in our best interests tofollow since living by them is better thanfending for ourselves.

So we should follow the basic rules ofsociety and trade some individual libertyfor the rule of law.

In Defense of the Social Contract

What if we could get away withnot paying taxes, or otherwisetaking advantage of “publicgoods” for private gain – whyshouldn’t we?

The Tragedy of the Commons

The Tragedy of the Commons

Even if we all have an interest in a clean world . . .

The Tragedy of the Commons

we also all have an interest in getting something for nothing . . .

The Tragedy of the Commons

and taking more than our fair share.

The Tragedy of the Commons

What might prevent such selfish behavior?

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill1806 – 1873

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill1806 – 1873

“The Greatest-HappinessPrinciple holds that actionsare right in proportion asthey tend to promotehappiness, wrong as theytend to produce the reverseof happiness.”

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill1806 – 1873

“The Greatest-HappinessPrinciple holds that actionsare right in proportion asthey tend to promotehappiness, wrong as theytend to produce the reverseof happiness.”

John Stuart Mill was a British economist,philosopher and social reformer. Heassumed that humans were self-interested, yet that we could also beconvinced to act for the good of others.Mills philosophy of utilitarianism remainspopular to this day among economistsand policy makers.

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill1806 – 1873

We are all after the same thing –happiness.

There is no reason why my happinessshould be considered more importantthan anyone else’s happiness

So we should always act to maximizeoverall happiness, by choosing whatleads to the greatest benefit for themost people involved.

An argument for utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

We are all after the same thing –happiness.

There is no reason why my happinessshould be considered more importantthan anyone else’s happiness

So we should always act to maximizeoverall happiness, by choosing whatleads to the greatest benefit for themost people involved.

An argument for utilitarianism

Even if different things mightmake different people happy we allshare the quest for happiness.

Utilitarianism

We are all after the same thing –happiness.

There is no reason why my happinessshould be considered more importantthan anyone else’s happiness

So we should always act to maximizeoverall happiness, by choosing whatleads to the greatest benefit for themost people involved.

An argument for utilitarianism

If happiness is valuable in itselfthen what reason can I have forsaying that my happiness countsbut yours doesn’t?

Utilitarianism

We are all after the same thing –happiness.

There is no reason why my happinessshould be considered more importantthan anyone else’s happiness

So we should always act to maximizeoverall happiness, by choosing whatleads to the greatest benefit for themost people involved.

An argument for utilitarianism

Utilitarianism bases the value ofan action purely on theconsequences of that action.

Is what is “good” always what is “right?”

Is what is “good” always what is “right?”

Does the end always justify the means?

Is what is “good” always what is “right?”

How do we know what the ultimate consequences of our actions are?

Is what is “good” always what is “right?”

Can we put a price on human lives?

Is what is “good” always what is “right?”

Is anything just plain wrong?

Kantian ethics

Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant1724 – 1804

Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant1724 – 1804

“Act in such a way that youtreat humanity, whether inyour own person or in theperson of another,always at the same time asan end and never simply asa means.”

Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant1724 – 1804

“Act in such a way that youtreat humanity, whether inyour own person or in theperson of another,always at the same time asan end and never simply asa means.”

Kant was a major figure in the intellectualmovement known as the Enlightenment. Hesought to provide a rational basis for thevalues of the French Revolution – liberty,equality, fraternity.

Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant1724 – 1804

Acting selfishly always involvesassuming that others will follow therules I break.

An act can be a moral act only if itcan be universally accepted.

Selfish action cannot be universallyaccepted since it contradicts itself.

So selfish action is fundamentallywrong.

Kant’s argument for universal morality

Kantian ethics

Acting selfishly always involvesassuming that others will follow therules I break.

An act can be a moral act only if itcan be universally accepted.

Selfish action cannot be universallyaccepted since it contradicts itself.

So selfish action is fundamentallywrong.

Kant’s argument for universal morality

If I lie or make false promises I amassuming that you value telling thetruth and keeping one’s promisesotherwise you’d never take me atmy word.

Kantian ethics

Acting selfishly always involvesassuming that others will follow therules I break.

An act can be a moral act only if itcan be universally accepted.

Selfish action cannot be universallyaccepted since it contradicts itself.

So selfish action is fundamentallywrong.

Kant’s argument for universal morality

To say that something is morallyacceptable or unacceptable is tomake an unconditional claim.

Kantian ethics

Acting selfishly always involvesassuming that others will follow therules I break.

An act can be a moral act only if itcan be universally accepted.

Selfish action cannot be universallyaccepted since it contradicts itself.

So selfish action is fundamentallywrong.

Kant’s argument for universal morality

What makes immoral actionwrong is that it fails to treatothers as equals by acting on adouble standard.

Kantian ethics

Acting selfishly always involvesassuming that others will follow therules I break.

An act can be a moral act only if itcan be universally accepted.

Selfish action cannot be universallyaccepted since it contradicts itself.

So selfish action is fundamentallywrong.

Kant’s argument for universal morality

This is the basis for the idea thatthere are universal human rights –fundamental limits in the way weshould treat each other.

Universal Rights

Universal Rights

Democracy is based on the idea that we all deserve equal protection of the law.

Universal Rights

Discrimination is wrong because it fails to treat equals as equals.

Universal Rights

What happens when a society fails to protect the rights of its citizens?

Universal Rights

Is deliberate violation of unjust laws acceptable?

Feminist Ethics

Feminist Ethics

Carol Gilligan1936 –

Feminist Ethics

Carol Gilligan1936 –

“My research suggests thatmen and women may speakdifferent languages that theyassume are the same, usingsimilar words to encodedisparate experiences of selfand social relationships.”

Feminist Ethics

Carol Gilligan1936 –

“My research suggests thatmen and women may speakdifferent languages that theyassume are the same, usingsimilar words to encodedisparate experiences of selfand social relationships.”

Carol Gilligan refused to accept that standardmodels of moral development did justice tothe moral experience of women.

Feminist Ethics

Carol Gilligan1936 –

Philosophy and psychology presume thatmorality requires following impartial anduniversal rules.

This “masculine” approach to moraldecision-making leaves out “feminine”concerns with concrete relationships.

A complete picture of morality requiresbalancing abstract rules with particularrelationships.

Gilligan’s argument

Feminist Ethics

Philosophy and psychology presume thatmorality requires following impartial anduniversal rules.

This “masculine” approach to moraldecision-making leaves out “feminine”concerns with concrete relationships.

A complete picture of morality requiresbalancing abstract rules with particularrelationships.

Gilligan’s argument

The dominant theory of moraldevelopment, that of LawrenceKohlberg, argues that moral ma-turity requires following universalrules regardless of the human costsinvolved.

Feminist Ethics

Philosophy and psychology presume thatmorality requires following impartial anduniversal rules.

This “masculine” approach to moraldecision-making leaves out “feminine”concerns with concrete relationships.

A complete picture of morality requiresbalancing abstract rules with particularrelationships.

Gilligan’s argument

In Kohlberg’s tests female subjectstended to focus on social contextsat the expense of universal rules.

Feminist Ethics

Philosophy and psychology presume thatmorality requires following impartial anduniversal rules.

This “masculine” approach to moraldecision-making leaves out “feminine”concerns with concrete relationships.

A complete picture of morality requiresbalancing abstract rules with particularrelationships.

Gilligan’s argument

Rather than accept that thesesubjects were “under-developed”Gilligan defends the idea ofdiffering and complementarymoral “voices.”

Feminist Ethics

Philosophy and psychology presume thatmorality requires following impartial anduniversal rules.

This “masculine” approach to moraldecision-making leaves out “feminine”concerns with concrete relationships.

A complete picture of morality requiresbalancing abstract rules with particularrelationships.

Gilligan’s argument

Do men and women have differentmoral “styles?”

Feminisms

Feminisms

First wave: allow women to participate!

Feminisms

Second wave: end discrimination!

Feminisms

Third wave: autonomy now!