Ethics Exam 1

What counterintuitive consequences for morality follow from simple subjectivism & emotivism?

*Simple subjectivism implies moral infallibility - there can be no genuine moral disagreement.* Simple subjectivism has reduced what looks like a moral judgment to simply a report of the speaker's attitude - thus no one could ever be incorrect. It greatly limits moral discussion. If you're asking for reasons, you cannot be a subjectivist. Emotivism reduces all moral statements to venting of emotions, which cannot be assigned truth values. *There is genuine disagreement, but it cannot be reasoned disagreement.*

According to Rachels, what meta-ethical claims define cultural relativism?

1-Different cultures have different moral codes ^Descriptive (evidence could be found to support it) *2-There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one code better than another 3-The moral code of our own society has no special status 4-There is no universal truth in ethics (which could be used to judge different moral codes) 5-The moral code of each society determines what is right for that society* 6-We ought to be tolerant of others' judgments 2,3,4 & 5 are meta-ethical

Cultural relativism claims

1-Different cultures have different moral codes ^Descriptive (evidence could be found to support it) 2-There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one code better than another 3-The moral code of our own society has no special status 4-There is no universal truth in ethics (which could be used to judge different moral codes) 5-The moral code of each society determines what is right for that society 6-We ought to be tolerant of others' judgments ^normative claim 2,3,4&5 are all meta ethical claims

According to Broad's account, what defines a motive as altruistic? *How does Broad attempt to show that psychological egoism is not a true account of human motivation.*

A motive can be altruistic if it is other-regarding but in a self-referential way. An altruistic motive is self-referential - not self-regarding. Broad explains that seemingly egoistic motives or actions may actually have altruistic intent. (A) Were x to benefit from my actions, I would be happy, because: (C) I want x to benefit. The satisfaction of my desire for x to benefit makes me happy.

Principle of tolerance ^Normative principle (we "ought to" be tolerant)

Accepting some degree of moral disagreement (this cannot be related to cultural relativism, because it can only be true for societies which accept it) We ought to be tolerant of the moral views of others, since no one's feelings are any more correct than anyone else's - morality is just a matter of personal feelings.

If you say that though it is legal to beat your wife in some countries, it is morally wrong, you are not speaking from the view of relativism. What view would this by from?

An objective point of view - stating that just because someone states or feels that something is right/acceptable does not mean that it actually is

In Hume's theory, which has the primary role, reason or sentiment, in making moral judgments?

Because moral judgments are the subject of arguments, it can be argued that they are based in reason. Because moral judgments are often provoked by emotion and value terms, it can be argued that they are based in sentiment. Hume believes that the major basis for moral judgment is sentiment, however it is derived from reason.

Who wrote about "the 3 ways of formulating subjectivism"?

Bernard Williams - linguistic meta-ethical view (regarding the meaning of moral statements). metaphysical meta-ethical view (regarding the reality of moral values). epistemological meta-ethical view (regarding moral knowledge).

Who attempted to show that psychological egoism is not a true account of human motivation?

Broad

What does it mean that there is no genuine moral disagreement in simple subjectivism?

Bush says that stem cell research is immoral. Kerry says that it is not immoral (that it is morally permissible). If simple subjectivism is true, then there is no disagreement here. Both statements - although contrary - can be true, since: (again) they mean no more than the respective reports of personal response of approval or disapproval. Simple subjectivism eliminates a feature of moral discourse that is part of common moral understanding, and difficult to discard.

Who provided an explanation for psychological egoism? What was his conclusion?

C.D. Broad - C.D. Broad offers an alternative, non-egoistic, account of the psychology of motives even where benefiting others makes the agent of altruism happy. Broad's explanation: (A) Were x to benefit from my actions, I would be happy, because: (C) I want x to benefit. The satisfaction of my desire for x to benefit makes me happy. Broad's strategy here is to show -- by giving an alternative account -- that there is no deductive commitment to psychological egoism even where altruism makes the agent of altruism happy. Broad argues that even seemingly egoistic actions can have altruistic intent

Whose moral theory argued the following: (a) The capacity for perceiving the difference between moral right and wrong is part of human psychology; in this sense it is a "natural" capacity. (b) states that we can also observe that "others are susceptible of like impressions." So far, this could mean either that human beings generally have the capacity for discriminating moral right from wrong; or further, that people generally make the same moral discriminations.

David Hume

Egoism may be described by a theory of human motives. What are those motivations?

Desire for self-preservation Desire for one's own happiness Desire to be a Self of a certain kind ..for self respect, to get & keep property, for self-assertion & for self-display (aflection) The author states that there are natural motives & motive-stimulants which are interrelated and form the basis of egoism.

According to C.D. Broad what kinds of motives could be classified as egoistic? Use Broad's classification to specify.

Desire for self-preservation Desire for one's own happiness Desire to be a Self of a certain kind Desire for self respect Desire to get & keep property Desire for self-assertion Desire for self-display (aflection)

Examples of moral imperatives

Don't lie You ought to keep promises You shouldn't take plants from the neighbor's garden These are unconditional imperatives (we don't represent them in an if-then statement). They do not depend on a particular interest/condition you might have; they apply anyway

Rule utilitarianism

Even if you think the benefits outweigh the pain the action might cause, you must abide by the rules applicable to the situation

How does Hume draw a nominal distinction between the benevolent virtues and their corresponding vices?

He makes a nominal distinction between each virtue and corresponding vice - the virtues are those character traits that receive our admiration, while the vices are those that receive our disapproval - he only comments on the way we evaluate things (because it receives our admiration, it is a virtue. because it receives our disapproval, it is a vice) It is a nominal distinction, because it isn't quite clear what is behind the admiration of the virtues or disapproval of the vices. Being an empiricist, he focuses on observations.

A problem with cultural relativism

How do we define a "culture"? A single individual could be long to more than one culture - what then is morally right for them, if there is a difference across cultures on a particular subject. A moral objectivist would observe the differences across cultures, but then ask what is in fact right or wrong

Who draws a "nominal distinction" between benevolent virtues & their corresponding vices?

Hume

Who generated the theory of moral sentiment?

Hume

Who generated the theory of sympathetic identification?

Hume

Who had a "naturalistic" moral theory?

Hume

Who had the theory of the impartial spectator?

Hume

What does cultural relativism challenge?

It challenges moral objectivism (as does subjectivism) - there is such a thing as objective truth when it comes to morality

What general characteristics define a moral point of view?

It is *social*, *normative* - as a normative point of view, the statements found in morality are unconditional (whereas other normative statements are conditional). *Universality* is a hallmark of a moral point of view, it isn't conditional on a certain set of interests. It's also *rational*, but this launches a lengthy discussion about the depth of reasoning. The moral point of view is its own perspective; it is distinct from the law.

What does it mean when we say that morality is normative?

It is action-guided. Uses normative terms such as value terms (good and bad/right and wrong), imperatives (direct commands - ought/should) This is different than "descriptive"

What does it mean when we say morality is social?

It is shared

Hume's "naturalistic" moral theory means what?

It is very scientific, based on empirical data. Morality is derived from human psychology & is influenced by society. Though a product of human psychology, it is also objective. He uses terms that suggest moral visual perception. "Images of right & wrong", moral distinctions being "in view," etc

In what way (s) is David Hume's moral theory a naturalistic moral philosophy?

It is very scientific, based on empirical data. Morality is derived from human psychology & is influenced by society. Though a product of human psychology, it is also objective. He uses terms that suggest moral visual perception. "Images of right & wrong", moral distinctions being "in view," etc Hume explains morality by describing natural traits that are universal to humans. He identifies "natural altruism" as the innate tendency to be concerned with the good of other people. His whole picture of human nature is that we have a natural affinity for other people in addition to our affinity for self-preservation (egoism/selfishness). We require the society of others to avoid isolation - not only do we need society, we want it. Solitary confinement is considered such a severe penalty because it brings great pain to the psyche. His theory is one of "limited altruism" because he acknowledges that we are not completely self sacrificing: there is a place for self-interest in the midst of society. Other natural tendencies he identifies are sympathetic identification and moral sentiment.

What are issues with subjectivism?

It requires tolerance, however saying that you ought to be tolerant is in and of itself contradictory to the whole theory. Tolerance itself is a normative idea, while subjectivism says that any normative idea is only true for the person who has that idea. This issue also occurs with cultural relativism.

Who wrote about 2 kinds of subjectivism as a linguistic meta-ethical view?

James Rachels: simple subjectivism (x is right = I approve of x / x is wrong = i disapprove of x) and emotivism (x is right = hooray for x! / x is wrong = boo for x!)

Other times there is a divergence between legality & what is morally right

Legal & morally wrong Illegal & morally right

What is moral objectivism? What is moral subjectivism?

Moral objectivism is the meta-ethical view that moral judgments are objectively correct or incorrect (right/wrong). Moral theory's task is to achieve correct moral understanding & judgment. Moral subjectivism opposes moral objectivism; it states that there is NO distinction between what people believe is right/wrong and what IS right/wrong for that person.

Explain Hume's theory of moral sentiment. How is moral sentiment different from other human emotions?

Moral sentiment is a response of approval or disapproval, a response of feeling to feeling. It is different from other emotions in that it is a 2nd order emotion. Other human emotion is 1st order: it is the initial emotional response to something (ex: frustration when in heavy traffic). Moral sentiment is 2nd order: it is an impartial, reflective & informed emotional response to a 1st order emotion. We have the capacity to stand back from the 1st order state & possibly even change it. We must understand what we are observing in order to arrive at a 2nd order state.

A epistemology subjectivist interpretation means what?

Moral statements can be neither confirmed or disconfirmed; there are no truth values that can be assigned to moral statements

What is Rachels' view of moral nihilism?

NOTHING IS REALLY RIGHT OR WRONG. "Everything is permitted." -- follows from subjectivism Rather than claiming not to care about morality as the amoralist claims, here the claim is that there are no moral distinctions to care about.

Does Broad believe in psychological egoism?

No. though he begins by describing the concept of psychological egoism, he ultimately argues against it, explaining that humans are naturally altruistic

Who explained the view of moral nihilism?

Rachel

According to Hume, what reasons can be given for thinking that morality is based in human reason? What reasons can be given for thinking that morality is based in human sentiment?

Reasons for thinking morality is based in human reason: Moral distinctions are objects of arguments. Attempts are made to determine true moral judgment. Reasons for thinking morality is based in human sentiment: Moral judgments use value terms. The purpose of moral judgments is to influence behavior by motivating appropriate conduct.

What is cultural relativism?

Right and wrong are defined by the standards of each culture - or whatever culture you are a part of.

According to James Rachels what is simple subjectivism; what is emotivism? Illustrate with examples.

Simple subjectivism: x is right x is good/virtuous x ought to be done = I (speaker) approve of x ^^ a moral judgment is simply a report of the speaker's attitude - thus no one could ever be incorrect. (Ex: Bush says stem cell research is immoral. Kerry says stem cell research is not immoral. Both are correct according to simple subjectivism, as they are both only reporting their attitudes on the subject) Emotivism: whenever anyone makes a normative statement (ie. x is good), they are simply venting a positive emotion x is good = hooray for x! x is bad = boo for x!

According to Hume, what are the benevolent virtues?

Sociable Humane Merciful Friendly Generous Grateful Kind

Explain Hume's theory of sympathetic identification. Illustrate with example(s).

Sympathetic identification is the theory Hume uses to differentiate us from other animals. It is the capacity to experience, at least to some degree, what we observe others experiencing. Ex: if we see someone crying, we immediately experience to some degree a sense of sadness. We don't think about it or reason to it, we simply immediately respond in kind. Hume believes this is so universal that if someone were to be found who lacks this capacity, they would lack all humanity & would be incapable of making a moral judgment. This is considered a sociopath: someone who lacks the ability to identify with other humans.

A linguistic subjectivist interpretation means what?

Taking a literal meaning of what is being said - semantics

What is the thing that most have a problem with in cultural relativism?

That if it is true, it means there is no universal moral truth - that there are only various cultural codes

What is the core argument of the cultural relativist? What examples illustrate the main premise of this argument?

The Cultural Differences Argument Different cultures have different moral codes. There is no objective truth in morality. Right & wrong are matters of opinion.

What principle does Hume identify as the normative foundation of our moral judgments? How does Hume's argument demonstrate a regard for empirical method?

The ability to promote or diminish social utility is the principle identified as the normative foundation for our moral judgments. His argument is empirical in that it is rooted in data gathered from observations.

Why does the amoralist pose a challenge in an ethical discussion?

The amoralist asks "why should I care about ethics?" The article suggests that it may be impossible to provide reasoning to make someone care about whether something is right or wrong. However, if the person is rational, there may be persuasive reasoning. ^The author mentions that this attitude has an air of hopelessness about it, the type that one might equate with suicidal ideation.

What is amoralism?

The amoralist is one who recognizes that others follow a moral code, and often allow their actions to be dictated (or heavily influenced by it), but does not allow such judgments or opinions to sway his own decisions. The amoralist understands that ethics exist, however begs the question " Why should I care?"

What challenge(s) does the amoralist pose for morality?

The challenges an amoralist presents include the challenge to care about moral reasons; he is challenging the value of a moral code, asking how it would impact his life. This is the challenge Williams tries to meet in his argument. This kind of skepticism is normative, rather than an epistemological theory of knowledge.

Hume's answer to the question: what is the origin of morality? What psychological capacity is the source of moral judgment Is morality based in reason or in human sentiment? What is the psychology behind moral judgments? Are we reasoning to a judgment or is it a response of feeling?

The fact that moral judgments are the source of arguments suggests that they are derived from reason. The fact that emotions & value statements are used to make a distinction between right & wrong suggests that moral judgment is derived from sentiment. Hume argues that both reason & sentiment influence moral judgments, however sentiment plays the primary role. It is sentiment derived from reason that drives moral judgments.

What does Hume mean by the point of view of an impartial spectator? Explain how this perspective provides an explanation for moral objectivity.

The impartial spectator is what Hume uses to describe objectivity. Rather than taking a moral order that is independent from psychology, he suggests that we are able to be impartial every time we make a moral judgment. He explains agreement in moral judgments we make by saying that we are able to act as impartial spectators. He explains disagreement by saying that we are all either not adequately informed or we are not being adequately impartial when making a judgment. He believes there is a general agreement on the basics of morality

What are the implications & objections to emotivism?

The role of reasons in moral discourse differentiates moral claims from mere expressions of attitude or feeling. We don't appeal to just any consideration that might influence behavior: but only to morally relevant considerations: to moral reasons. You ought not to steal vegetables from your neighbor's yard, because it shows disrespect for your neighbor; or he has a property right to what he grows in his yard. Reasons provide justification for moral claims that are independent from the way we might feel.

What is psychological egoism?

The view that all people are ultimately motivated by their own well-being --- Even if Pam were to save someone from a burning building, the psychological egoist would contend that she did so because it ultimately benefits her (whether this is conscious or subconscious) The psychological egoist believes that all humans are motivated by self-interest by their very nature - it does not contend that this moral or amoral, only that it is the way we are.

What does Hume say about the way the virtues are observed/what do they mean to people/why do we tend to admire them? What principle is this?

The virtues have a tendency to promote social utility, while the vices tend to diminish utility. This is a normative principle: *the principle of utility* (actions are right or wrong in so far as whether they tend to promote or diminish social utility) This makes him an early Utilitarian - he uses social utility as a central value in the theory - it turns out to be the reason behind our perception of virtue & vice. Utility is used to describe the general wellbeing, welfare, happiness of society. All utilitarians have this as the central value in their theory.

Moral objectivism

There IS a distinction between what someone approves or disapproves of and what is right and wrong It's possible that what someone believes to be right is actually moral - This is not the view that there is no gray area; it is the view that there simply is a right and wrong, but differing opinions on it

A metaphysical subjectivist interpretation means what?

There are no moral facts (as compared to scientific facts, which are still out there waiting to be discovered)

Moral subjectivism

There is no distinction between what someone approves or disapproves of and what is right and wrong Breaks moral truth up into the opinions of individuals - it makes morality subjective This is NOT the same as nihilism, in which there is NO right and wrong

What are conditional imperatives?

They do not apply universally but they are rational; they only apply if a certain interest exists. If (condition) then (imperative) Ex: If you want to learn music, then you ought to practice scales & arpeggios -> the imperative is necessary to reach the goal ^This is a non-moral imperative

Hume asks: What normative principle is the foundation of moral judgments that we make?

This doesn't look right away at psychological capacity, but rather at its normativity. His normative theory leads to his psychological theory. *Benevolence*: a character trait, a general term he uses and then breaks it down into the "benevolent character traits" (he doesn't claim that this is a complete list, just some traits that would be regarded as benevolent) He then asks us to consider the opposites which exist for each benevolent character trait: Humane - cruel Sociable - anti-social Grateful - ungrateful Friendly - hostile Generous - stingy/greedy Merciful - vengeful Kind - mean This is called "virtue theory" - Hume's theory is a mix of virtue theory & another kind. He makes a nominal distinction between each virtue and corresponding vice - the virtues are those character traits that receive our admiration, while the vices are those that receive our disapproval - he only comments on the way we evaluate things (because it receives our admiration, it is a virtue. because it receives our disapproval, it is a vice) It is a nominal distinction, because it isn't quite clear what is behind the admiration of the virtues or disapproval of the vices. Being an empiricist, he focuses on observations.

How is morality related to law? How is morality different from law?

This is a question within metaethics, asking how morality is related to the law, or if it is different from the law at all...There is a close relationship between morality & the law. They both use normative terms such as (good/bad, right/wrong). We would prefer to have laws that are morally correct - we prefer not to have laws that are immoral. Some moral codes have their source as the law (law of taxation has created an associated moral obligation to pay taxes to contribute to society). Yet there are some things which are legal but morally wrong, or illegal and morally right. So though there is a relationship, the law does not always coincide with morality.

How might one reach an amoralist?

Though he may be indifferent to moral considerations, there are some things that he does care about. You must recognize those things in order to speak in terms that matter to him - avoid a more "formal" aspect of morality This man is a parasite on the moral system. No society can exist without some semblance of moral rules, and he cannot exist without a society. An amoralist believes that others abide by a moral code because they are afraid of the repercussions of not doing so - their fear is what convinces him that he is courageous to NOT care about said repercussions. The other does not agree with amoralism because after each amoralist stance that he presents, he states that it is "absurd." If an amoralist truly cares about no one other than himself, he may be labeled a psychopath - and trying to reason with him is useless.

What is the principle of tolerance? Is the principle of tolerance logically related to subjectivism? Why or why not?

We *ought* to be tolerant of the moral views of others, since no one's feelings are any more correct than anyone else's - morality is just a matter of personal feelings. ("ought"=normative) Subjectivism requires tolerance, however saying that you ought to be tolerant is in and of itself contradictory to the whole theory. Tolerance itself is a normative idea, while subjectivism says that any normative idea is only true for the person who has that idea. This issue also occurs with cultural relativism.

If cultural relativism were true, what kinds of moral judgments would not be possible? Illustrate with examples.

We could not say others' cultures are morally inferior to our own - We could not judge anti-Semitism We could not say actions are right or wrong based on the standards of our society - We could not judge genocide. We could make no claims of moral progress - Social reform is judgment of our own society. "Reform" suggests the society is better than it was before, a judgment that cannot be made within cultural relativism

Who described the moral psychology of the amoralist?

Williams

How does Bernard Williams describe the moral psychology of the amoralist? What challenge(s) does the amoralist pose for morality?

Williams mentions several types - the sociopath, the clinically depressed (this is classified along with the sociopath - he is not concerned with these 2 because there is some sort of deficiency with these 2 types of individuals. They have some deficiency in their mental capacity which is getting in the way of their full competence/rationality). When he sets these aside, he is able to focus on the amoralist he is concerned with: a competent adult (fully rational, has interests of his own, has not given up on everything like the depressed), claims to adopt an attitude of moral indifference. Fully rational, yet demanding a reason to care about moral values. He tries to show that the point of view of amoralism is not rational - though the amoralist he is concerned with would be considered rational (the way of thinking is not, according to Williams). If the amoralist says they don't care about being rational, they are not truly mentally competent and would not be classified as the type he is concerned with anyway. He addresses this person on the level of rationality. He concludes that this way of thinking is not rationally defensible.

Simple subjectivism

a moral judgment means nothing more than that the speaker approves/ disapproves of the object of moral evaluation. It is simply a report of the speaker's attitude.

Three ways of formulating subjectivism:

a. Subjectivism as a linguistic meta-ethical view (regarding the meaning of moral statements). b. Subjectivism as a metaphysical meta-ethical view (regarding the reality of moral values). c. Subjectivism as an epistemological meta-ethical view (regarding moral knowledge).

There is sometimes a coincidence between legality & what is morally right

legal & morally right illegal & morally wrong

The law shares the normative terms (good/bad, right/wrong, ought to/ought not) used in morality, which implies what?

makes it seem that the law equates to morality There is a close relationship between morality & the law. We would prefer to have laws that are morally correct - we prefer not to have laws that are immoral. Some moral codes have their source as the law (law of taxation has created an associated moral obligation to pay taxes to contribute to society)

Simple subjectivism implies what?

moral infallibility. If simple subjectivism is true, we cannot be wrong in any of the judgments we make. I cannot be mistaken about whether I approve or disapprove of something. As long as I am speaking sincerely when I make a moral judgment, then it is impossible for me ever to be wrong. But part of our common understanding of moral judgments is that we can be mistaken about the moral judgments we make. That we are not infallible.

Emotivism

moral judgments are nothing other than expressions of approval or disapproval. This is different from the claim that moral judgments are reports of personal attitudes.

One view that opposes moral objectivism is_, which states what?

moral subjectivism holds that there is no distinction between what people approve/ disapprove of and what is morally right/ wrong

Limitations of cultural relativism

no society could ever be viewed as having "advanced" - because who is to say that the changes made are "good" or "better"

what types of "morally right" actions are there?

permissible - not wrong to do it obligatory - wrong not to do the action heroic (supererogatory)- above & beyond obligation, praiseworthy but wouldn't be wrong if someone did not do it

simple subjectivism

picks apart the words used in a moral argument, analyzes their literal meaning, and basically utilizes a formula to find the moral truth x is right x is good/virtuous x ought to be done = I (speaker) approve of x x is wrong/vicious x is bad x ought not to be done = I (speaker) do not approve of x This theory has reduced what looks like a moral judgment to simply a report of the speaker's attitude - thus no one could ever be incorrect. It greatly limits moral discussion. If you're asking for reasons, you cannot be a subjectivist.

Basic definition of morality

set of social standards/norms that apply to actions

What does it mean to say that moral judgments are objective?

that there is a distinction between what people believe is morally right (or wrong) and what is morally right (or wrong).

Moral objectivism

the meta-ethical view that moral judgments are objectively correct (or incorrect) and that the task of moral theory and moral reasoning is to achieve correct moral understanding and make correct moral judgments.

Utilitarianism

the theory that the results of actions are the key to their moral evaluation, and that one should assess & compare those results in terms of the happiness or or unhappiness they cause (or in terms of their impact on people's wellbeing)

Ethical relativism

the theory that what is right is determined by what one's culture or society deems to be correct What is right in one place may be wrong in another, because the only criterion for distinguishing right from wrong -and so the only ethical standard for judging an action- is the moral system of the society in which the action occurs.

Moral facts

those moral claims that are justified by moral reasons

Amoralist

wants a reason for caring about moral reasons (yes, i understand it's immoral, but why should i care?) One school of thought is that there is no way to reason with an amoralist. Another is that we CAN show that there are reasons to care about morality - morality itself is a rational project.

emotivism

whenever anyone makes a normative statement (ie. x is good), they are simply venting a positive emotion x is good = hooray for x! x is bad = boo for x! This reduces all moral statements to venting of emotions, which cannot be assigned truth values.