PHL201 Final
Moral isolationism
- ethical/ cultural relativism as saying there cannot be any justified cross-cultural ethical judgements - "those who recommend this hold that the world is sharply divided into separate societies, sealed units, each with its own system of thought"
Why be moral? (Plato)
morality is the rule of society imposed through consequences- be moral, or face the consequences
fallacies: begging the question
- arguments that beg the question are not actually invalid, in our sense of validity - if an arguments conclusion is identical to one of its premises, then it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false - because the conclusion is one of the premises - arguments that beg the question are not good because they fail to give us a good reason to believe the conclusion
Mary Midgley
- british philosopher, 1919- - has written widely on the place of science in everyday life, ethics, and animal rights - wrote her first book in her fifties
what is the motivation for being just?
- can get us what we want - it is a good (just) thing to do
morality is a 'social construction'
- dictates of morality: - don't kill or steal are laws enacted by society to help it function - no society- no moral laws
Glaucon claims that people 'naturally' want to do injustice, but not have injustice done to them
- doing injustice gives one ad advantage (e.g stealing money, not working for it - bad resulting from suffering injustice outweighs the good obtained by inflicting it (negative results outweigh positives)
unsound argument
- either invalid or has false premises - remove one reason for believing its conclusion - not the same as believing that the conclusion is false - stronger claim requires giving a further argument against the conclusion
traditional ethics
- emphasize universality, impartiality, etc. - de-emphasize particularity, partiality, etc. - tended to be done by men
John Stuart Mill
- 1806- 1873 - contributed to political theory, ethics, and logic - first member of the British parliament to call for women suffrage
Plato
- 428 BCE- 348 BCE - student of socrates (main character in his dialogue) - teacher of Aristotle - founded the academy in Athens
when people do act justly, they do so against their will
- Glaucon argues that because everyone would be unjust if they wouldn't be found out, the reason people do act justly is because of fear of the law
is justice an intrinsic good or an instrumental good?
- Glaucon argues that justice is an instrumental good - we desire it because of what it can get us (success, fame, fortune) - acting justly is burdensome (sacrifice)
ethical or cultural relativism
- Glaucons claim that morality is a social construction - the practices of any given culture can only be judged by the standards of the same culture - "moral judgement is a kind of coinage valid only in its country of origin - but there can be other reasons for endorsing cultural relativism
does moral isolationism forbid positive judgements as well as negative ones?
- Midgley claims that we need to be able to praise other cultures - but how can we praise, if we can't also criticize? - if we can praise, that praise must rest on some kind of understanding -otherwise it would not be worth very much - but this understanding need not be complete understanding - indeed, the possibility of praise based on incomplete understanding is required if learning from strangers is to be possible - we need to be able to judge which strangers are worth learning from and which not - but this doesn't require complete understanding-otherwise there would never be anything to learn
consider a practice in another culture but not our own culture
- Midgley's example: the classical Japanese practice of testing newly crafted samurai sword by seeing if it would cleanly cut a person in two from shoulder to just about the waist on the opposite side. - compare our own practice of medical experimenting
Compare
- Questions (interrogatives) - Commands (imperatives)
The Ring of Gyges
- Shepard finds a chasm containing a bronze horse - in the bronze horse there is a body ' of more than human size' - the body is wearing a ring - the ring turns the wearer invisible - Shepard uses it to obtain a position of power within the kinds admin - he seduces the kings wife and murders the kind with her help - he takes over the kingdom -> the ring allows the wearer to do whatever they want without consequence
"If...then..." sentences
- a sentence that goes "if (this thing is the case) then (that thing is the case)" is not true if the first thing is true but the second is not - NOT for "if (this thing WERE the case) then (that thing) would be the case
Summary of Thomson's 'Defense of Abortion'
- a women's body is (a lot like) her private property - it is praiseworthy, but not morally required, to give up your own private property to enable the survival of another - so a woman is not morally required to get an abortion- ever (though it may be 'positively indecent' to not do so)
whats the connection between universal moral truths and Midgley's claim that moral isolationism precludes respect for other cultures?
- accepting a claim as a serious moral truth in the context of one culture, means accepting that same claim as a serious moral truth about other cultures - to not do this is to not seriously respect the other culture - allowing that it can teach us things about our own culture
Two objections to utilitarianism (Second)
- according to rule utilitarianism, killing all sad people is wrong because in most cases, killing creates unhappiness - but does rule utilitarianism still allow for the flexibility of morality? 2) the organ donor case - five people are in hospital, each with different ailment, One has faulty kidneys, the other a bad heart, etc. - harvesting one healthy persons organs would save five lives - should we do it? - maybe not if were rule utilitarians
fallacy
- an argument that is presented as a good reason to believe its conclusion when it actually isn't - affirming the antecedent and denying the consequent
moral isolationism undermines its own motivation
- ethical/ cultural relativism results (in part) from a desire to be respectful of other cultures - it is a moral judgement to hold that cultural imperialism or insensitivity is a wrong thing to do - " we could not condemn oppression and insolence if we thought that all our own condemnations were a trivial local quirk of our own culture"
Feminist Ethics
- ethicists try to understand, criticize, and correct how gender operates within our moral beliefs and practices - emphasis on universality, impartiality, and rights over relationships, particularity, and partially results from a gendered approach to ethical questions
universality of morality (utilitarianism)
- every person is just as worthy of moral consideration as any other - cases where we don't seem to think that morality is flexible or universal
Midgley's conclusion on moral isolationism
- fatal to practical philosophy - no consequences for theoretical philosophy - bad result if we are just incapable of practical philosophy
The inference generalizes (Midgley)
- for any culture, we cannot understand its practices, and so cannot make informed judgements about them - the samurai practice is very strange, and so difficult for us to judge because we are not members of Classical Japanese culture
Thomson's defence of abortion
- grants that the fetus is always a person - even if the fetus is always a person - abortion is still permissible
Epicureans
- group of Ancient Greek philosophers who also believed (a form of utilitarianism) - when thus attacked. the epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their ancestors, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings capable of no pleasures except those go which swine are capable
What exactly is happiness (Mill)
- happiness= pleasure (and absence of pain) - so pleasure is the sole intrinsic good - " all desirable things... are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain" - its not your own happiness, but everyones happiness, that matters - e.g stealing is wrong because is lowers everyones happiness more than it increases ones own (glaucon on unjust)
valid argument
- if and only if its premises can't be true without the conclusion being true too - if and only if it is not possible for the premises to be true and conclusion false
Why are there consequences for acting unjustly?
- if anyone could do injustice with no consequences, it would be irrational not to do so - anyone that does act justly does so only because there are consequences - if everyone did injustice all the time, society would break down (people would suffer net badness, not net goodness)
understanding
- includes understanding of other cultures -come in degrees -progress is possible -its not all or nothing - it holds for ourselves as well as outsiders
material conditional P->Q
- is true if and only if the argument P, therefore Q is valid - an argument is valid if and only if the material conditional with the conjunction of the premises as antecedent and the conclusion as the consequent is true
what if the mothers life is not in danger?
- it is permissible for a women to have an abortion performed on her, even though she consented and the pregnancy does not endanger her life?
Conjecture to abortion
- it is permissible to abort a fetus that is the result of rape - if the right to life precludes the permissibility of abortions fetuses that are the result of rape do not have the right to life - if they did have the right to life, it would be impermissible to abort them - seems wrong to deny some fetuses the right to life just because of their origin - granting that abortion is permissible in cases of rape allows that it can be permissible to abort even if the fetus has the right to life
some kinds of pleasures are more desirable than others
- mental pleasures are superior to bodily ones - when someone prefers bodily pleasure to mental ones (addiction_ we consider them to not be well-functioning - we consider it a good think to cultivate appreciation for mental pleasures (e.g reading books)
utilitarianism is consistent with the nobility of moral action
- morality is only as base as the things which make people happy - people are made happy by noble things - compare socrates vs glaucon on whether the just ring-wearer would resist their appetites
cultural cross-pollination
- morally rewarding - not always easy - not a deep philosophical problem - relating to each other
Moral action
- not intrinsically good, but instrumentally good - gets us happiness, which is intrinsically good
statements, sentences, and propositions
- not valid or sound, only arguments are - true/false - plausible/implausible -probable/improbable
Suppose there are two rings of Gyges
- one is possessed by a completely just person, the other by a completely unjust person - Glaçon argues that the just person would become corrupted, and do exactly what the unjust person does - if an invisible person acts justly, no one would know that they are acting justly - if people did find out, they would take the wearer of the ring to not be very smart - the unjust ring-wearer would manufacture an illusion of justness on their behalf and gain the resulting honour and rewards -the just ring-wearer would not do this- leaving themselves open to being framed for unjust actions by the unjust ring-wearer and their reputation and social standing would deteriorate the unjust person rules his city (because of his reputation for justice) - he makes the right sacrifices to the gods, who in turn take better care of him than of the just person - he also takes better care of his family than the just person, because he has more money
flexibility of morality (utilitarianism)
- one way utilitarianism accords with our moral beliefs - killing is nearly always wrong, but there are exceptions (e.g self defence) - cases where we don't seem to think that morality is flexible or universal
Justice is not good for its own sake, but for what it gets you
- people do have a reason to be just - society rewards it and doesn't punish it
The Analogy ( person-seed pollen)
- person-seed= fetus - mesh screen= contraception - keeping carpets furniture, having operable doors and windows= having an operative reproductive system -> when someones right to life conflicts with your right to do what you want with your own body, it is permissible to exercise the latter right
just action is rewarded materially and spiritually
- pervasive nature of the claim - this has an effect on how people think about justice - justice is only a good decision when it comes with the attendant rewards or consequences
Premises
- rhetorical questions plus an answer (conclusions can also take this form) - "if...then..."
under what circumstances it is permissible to abort, even though the fetus has the right to life?
- self defence: the women herself can abort the fetus, but a third party cannot - a women has a right to control what happened to her body... but she has to do it herself - it seems that if its permissible for a women to abort her own fetus, its permissible for a third party to help
utilitarianism does not have to operate with this conception of happiness
- the fact that we know its false that humans would be content with base pleasures - " the comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beasts pleasures do not satisfy a human beings conception of happiness"
Socrates' ultimate response in the Republic
- the just possessor of the ring would not use it to their own unjust advantage - if they do, they would be a slave to their own appetites - if they don't, they have realized that being just can make them happier than being unjust - there is happiness in knowing one can resist one's appetites
Utilitarianism (J.S. Mill)
- the view that one should always do what will result in the most happiness for the most people - the moral thing to do is promote everyones happiness as much as possible - the reason we should be moral is because it makes everyone happier - can be either relativistic or non-relativistic
C: if a person-seed takes root, you cannot evict it from your house
- this looks wrong - even if a person-seed does take root, you have the right to evict it from your house - so we need to reject one of the premises of the argument
The ring of Gyges (Glaucon) function
- to argue that if there were no consequences, even a 'just' person would act unjustly - therefore: it is in everyones nature- not just that of the 'unjust' person- to act unjustly
if we cannot judge other cultures, can we even judge our own culture?
- to judge ones own culture (e.g. is eating meat ok?) one needs a standard comparison - the standard comparison can't just be what your own culture does because then everything your culture does meet the standard - Midgley concludes that therefore, moral isolationism doesn't just forbid moral judgments of other cultures, but moral judgments in general - if we take moral judgements to be nothing more than judging some action to be an example to aim for or avoid, then moral isolationism forbids judging action in general
origin of justice
- we make laws to help society function - what these laws command is what people call 'just' - to not kill people is just because its what our law says
further reasons why consequences matter to morality
- when parents teach their children to be just, they don't praise justice itself, but the rewards one gets - material rewards in this world - spiritual rewards are next
fallacies: the fallacy fallacy
- when you show that an argument is fallacious, you remove reason for believing its conclusion - not the same as believing that the conclusion is false - the stronger claim requires giving a further argument against the conclusion
Utilitarianism could be either relativistic or non-relativistic (Mill)
- whether utilitarianism results in ethical relativism depends on whether what makes people happy is culturally relative or not - so as long as at least one way of being happy is universal (e.g. avoidance of death) utilitarianism is not culturally relative moral theory
observation on gender-centric approach
- which beliefs a person has, which things they are likely to believe if prompted, and which arguments they are likely to accept can be- and usually is- influenced by contingent facts about their environment and background - (e.g. someone from contemporary western society is more likely to believe that Atheism is ok than someone from medieval Europe )
The violinist thought experiment
- you are kidnapped in the middle of the night by the society of music lovers - they hook you up intravenously to a world-famout violinist who will die unless you stay hooked up for 9 months - are you permitted to unhook yourself? - suppose you did consent- are you obligated to stay hooked up?
Conclusion
-"therefore" - "hence" - "thus" -"then"
Midgley considers the (2) to answer ethical relativism
-> ethical relativism is not only false, but fatal to our ability to form any justified judgements at all
what if the mother is recklessly irresponsible, or positively malicious?
-positively indecent, but not forbidden - compare: it is indecent, but not illegal, to never tip
Two objections to utilitarianism (First)
-utilitarianism says the right thing to do is whatever creates the most happiness for the most people - but there are cases where this does not accord with our moral beliefs 1) the existence of sad people brings net happiness down - so does utilitarianism sat we should kill all the sad people? - maybe not. we can distinguish rule utilitarianism from act utilitarianism
is abortion ever permitted? or is it always forbidden? (1)
1) a fetus is a person. -it is always wrong to kill a person - it is always wrong to kill a fetus - abortion is never permitted - people have the right to life and so does a fetus - problem: when does the fetus become a person
why a gender-centric approach?
1) gender (among other things) influences what one is likely to believe 2) in the past, the notion of ethical truth has been used to justify gender oppression (as well as other variables)
Two important claims (J.S. Mill)
1) happiness is the only intrinsic good 2) the common moral claims (dont kill, steal etc.) promote happiness
Why believe in ethical relativism? (1)
1) if there are no moral facts in the world- no feature of the world that makes it the case that murder is wrong (compare: electrons have negative charge)- then perhaps the next best explanation for our belief that murder is wrong is that we have a social practice of regarding it as wrong - what makes murder wrong is the same kind of thing that makes it wring to wear a hat indoors (metaphysical)
Two issue in ethics
1) is abortion ever permissible 2) feminist vs. traditional ethics
Glaucon argues justice is an instrumental good (3 stages)
1) what is justice, and what are its origins? 2) when people practice justice, they do so against their will 3) but people have a good (instrumental) reasons to act justly
Why believe in ethical relativism? (2)
2) forming a justified belief about whether a given cultures practices are ethically ok or not requires substantial knowledge of how that culture functions. Perhaps, so substantial you basically need to become part of that culture - therefore, no culture can be justifiably evaluated from the outside - epistemological reason
Why believe in ethical relativism? (3)
3) inattention to specific features of the way other cultures work has, in the past, resulted income pretty horrific colonial practices. So perhaps we should not make judgements about other cultures practices without first gaining knowledge of how that culture works - this is an inference from the past
Falling objects (Galileo) thought experiment
Aristotelian physics says that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Imagine a heavy object glued to a lighter object (so they form 'one' object). Does this fall slower or faster than the heavy part by itself? (conceive if they fit together)
Premise-conclusion form (argument)
P1. Socrates is a man P2. All men are mortal Therefore, C. Socrates is mortal
Why be moral? (Mary Midgley)
are there any universal moral truths
Philosophy
arguments arriving at a new hypothesis (knowledge)
invalid argument (counterexample to an argument)
at least one possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false
instrumental good
good because it gets you something else (e.g. money)
intrinsic good
good for its own sake (e.g. beauty, pleasure)
theoretical philosophy
concern with what is true - metaphysics - epistemology - logic - philosophy of special sciences
practical philosophy
concern with what one ought to do - ethics - political philosophy
both intrinsic and instrumental good
e.g knowledge- intrinsically valuable (perhaps), and helps you get around the world
cogent inductive argument
if and only if it is good and its premises are true
sounds argument
if and only if it is valid and its premises are true
good inductive argument
if and only if: - the truth of the premises gives reason to believe the conclusion - the truth of the premises increases the probability that the conclusion is true
Thought experiment
imagining some scenario or situation, and reflecting on the outcome (e.g. could there be a book 100m tall? (imagine) could there be an object that is both green and red all over? (imagine) could there be a married bachelor? (conceive if they fit together)
Logic
mathematical study of one particular feature of arguments: the consequence relation that holds between the premises and the conclusion
Care-based ethics (feminist approach)
reverse the emphasis on impartiality over partiality
Declarative Sentence
says that something is the case ex. socrates is a man
Arguments
sequence of declarative sentences
situation (counterexample)
the premises are true and the conclusion if false
act utilitarianism
the right thing to do in any particular case is what creates the most happiness
rule utilitarianism
the right thing to so is to follow the rules which in most cases create the most happiness
inductive arguments that aren't good
there is at least one possible situation in which the truth of the premises does not raise the probability of the conclusion
logical possibility
those premises do not entail a contradiction
epistemological reason
to do with our ability to know or be justified in believing something
metaphysical reason
to do with what the world is like
Why be moral? (John Stuart Mill)
we should be moral because of the positive consequences
Reject P3: it is never permissible to deny someone with the right to life the resources for them to live
when someones right to life conflicts with your right to do what you want with your own body, it is permissible to exercise the latter right
