What Is Morality - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

none...

Description

What Is Morality? Before investing yourself in the study of an academic subject, it would be useful to first have some idea of what you are getting yourself into. One way—sometimes the best— to gain such an understanding is by considering a definition. When you open your trigonometry text or chemistry handbook, you’ll likely be given, very early on, a definition of the area you are about to study. So, as your teacher, I would seem to have a duty now to present you with a definition of morality. Even if we want to we just simply can’t. There is no widely agreed-on definition of morality. The absence of a definition does not leave us entirely in the dark, however. (After all, no one has yet been able to offer informative definitions of literature, or life, or art, and yet we know a great deal about those things.) Indeed, we can get a good sense of our subject matter by doing these four things: 1. 2. 3. 4.

being clear about the difference between conventional and critical morality; distinguishing the different branches of moral philosophy and their central questions; identifying starting points for moral thinking; and contrasting morality with other normative systems, including religious ones.

Conventional Morality Suppose you take sociology or an anthropology course, and you get to a unit on the morality of the cultures you’ve been studying. You’ll likely focus on the patterns of behavior to be found in the cultures, their accepted ideas about right and wrong, and the sorts of character traits that these cultures find admirable. These are the elements of what we can call conventional morality—the system of widely accepted rules and principles, created by and for human beings, that members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the actions and the motivations of others. Conventional morality can differ from society to society. The conventional morality of Saudi Arabia forbids women from publicly contradicting their husbands or brothers, while Denmark’s conventional morality allows this. People in the United States would think it immoral to leave a restaurant without tipping a good waiter or bartender, while such behavior in many other societies is perfectly OK.

Critical Morality When we talk about morality in this course, we will be referring to moral standards that are not rooted in widespread endorsement, but rather are independent of conventional morality and can be used to critically evaluate its merits. It’s possible, of course, that conventional morality is all there is. But this would be a very surprising discovery. Most of us assume, as I will do, that the popularity of a moral view is not a guarantee of its truth. We could be wrong on this point, but until we have a chance to consider the matter in detail, I think it best to assume that conventional

morality can sometimes be mistaken. If so, then there may be some independent, critical morality that (1) does not have its origin in social agreements; (2) is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular prejudices; and (3) can serve as the true standard for determining when conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen into error. That is the morality whose nature we are going to explore in this course. We all know that there are lots of moral questions. So it might help to impose some organization on them. This will enable us to see the basic contours of moral philosophy and also to better appreciate the fundamental questions in each part of the field, you are about to study.

There are three core areas of moral philosophy: 1. Value theory • • • •

What is the good life? What is worth pursuing for its own sake? How do we improve our lot in life? What is happiness, and is it the very same thing as well-being?

2. Normative ethics • • • • •

What are our fundamental moral duties? What makes right actions right? Which character traits count as virtues, which as vices, and why? Who should our role models be? Do the ends always justify the means, or are there certain types of action that should never be done under any circumstances?

3. Metaethics • • • •

What is the status of moral claims and advice? Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them true? Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how? Do we always have a good reason to do our moral duty?

One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to begin. Some skeptics about morality deny that there are any proper starting points for ethical reflection. They believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no moral views are any better than others. While this sort of skepticism

might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as the default view of ethics. We should accept it only as a last resort. In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly plausible ethical assumptions, claims that can get us started in our moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you up to the idea that we are not just spinning our wheels when thinking morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about how to live. Here are some of them: 1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism. The law does not have the final word on what is right and wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions that are legal, or customary, are sometimes morally mistaken. 2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some mistaken ethical views, and no human being is wholly wise when it comes to moral matters. 3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good thing. Friendships add value to your life. You are better off when there are people you care deeply about, and who care deeply about you. 4. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can demand only so much of us. Moral standards that are impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality must respect our limitations. 5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. Moral responsibility assumes an ability on our part to understand options, to make decisions in an informed way, and to let our decisions guide our behavior. The fewer of these abilities you have, the less blameworthy you are for any harm you might cause. 6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply suspect. It is important that we get what we deserve, and that we are treated fairly. 7. Deliberately hurting other people requires justification. The default position in ethics is this: do no harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable to harm others, but there must be an excellent reason for doing so or else the harmful behavior is unjustified. 8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are alike in all relevant respects should get similar treatment. When this fails to happen—when racist or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then something has gone wrong. 9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration. How well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the only thing of moral importance. Morality sometimes calls on us to set aside our own interests for the sake of others. 10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to cause such extreme suffering, but doing so requires a very powerful justification.

11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get away with lots of things that the rest of us can’t. That doesn’t justify what they do. That a person can escape punishment is one thing—whether his actions are morally acceptable is another. 12. Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one twisting your arm, you ask someone to do something for you, and she does it, then your rights have not been violated— even if you end up hurt as a result. There are a number of points to make about these claims.

First, this short list

isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It could be made much longer. •

•

Second, we are not claiming that the items on this list are beyond criticism. We are only saying that each one is very plausible. Hard thinking might weaken our confidence in some cases. The point, though, is that without such scrutiny, it is perfectly reasonable to begin our moral thinking with the items on this list. Third, many of these claims require interpretation in order to apply them in a satisfying way. When we say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated equally, we leave all of the interesting questions open. (What makes people equals? Can we treat people equally without treating them in precisely the same way? And so on.)

A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is, depending on how you look at it, either no morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any morality worth the name will place some importance on justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness. We can also better understand morality by contrasting its principles with those of other normative systems. Each of these represents a set of standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break. There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our focus to four of the most important of them: those that govern the law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.

Law The fact that a law tells us to do something does not settle the question of whether morality gives its stamp of approval. Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism of a dictator) are not immoral. Certainly, many laws require what morality requires and forbid what morality forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and that shows that morality is something different from the law. That a legislature passed a bill is not enough to show that the bill is morally acceptable. Etiquette We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate, but it isn’t immoral to set them on the right. Good manners are not the same thing as morally good conduct. Morality sometimes requires us not to be polite or gracious, as when someone threatens your children or

happily tells you a racist joke. So the standards of etiquette can depart from those of morality.

Self-interest The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in life by betraying others, lying about their past, breaking the rules that others are following. It’s an unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one: you sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting immorally. And those who behave virtuously are sometimes punished, rather than rewarded, for it. Whistleblowers who reveal a company’s or a government official’s corruption are often attacked for their efforts sued to the point of bankruptcy, and targeted for their courageous behavior. Though the relation between self-interest and morality is contested, it is a plausible starting point to assume that morality can sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that we can sometimes improve our lot in life by acting unethically. Tradition Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a practice has been around a long time does not automatically make it moral. Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as it did when people called for the abolition of slavery or for allowing women to vote. And some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be morally excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a foolproof test of its morality.

The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly believe that morality can be understood only in the context of religion. Thus the clergy are assumed to be authorities on morality. When viewed from a non-religious perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose.

The Divine Command Theory The basic idea is that God decides what is right and wrong. Actions that God commands are morally required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and all other actions are permissible or merely morally neutral. This theory has a number of attractive features. •

•

It immediately solves the old problem of the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids it. The Divine Command Theory explains why any of us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t we just look out for ourselves? If immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, then there is an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems with the theory.

• •

Atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for believers. One can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? This is a question of whether God makes the moral truths true or whether he merely recognizes that they’re true.

First, we might say that right conduct is right because God commands it. But this idea encounters several difficulties. 1. This conception of morality is mysterious. 2. This conception of morality makes God’s commands arbitrary. 3. This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.

The second option has a different drawback. In taking it, we abandon the theological conception of right and wrong. When we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard that is independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to God’s command and is the reason for the command.

Part 1 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship between morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is morality the same thing as the commands of God? Is there no morality if there is no God? Ultimately, Stephen will argue that morality and God's commands are distinct, even if there is a God and she commands moral things. However, in this first video, Steve considers why you might like the view that morality just is God's commands. Part 2 of a pair. Stephen considers the relationship between morality and God. Specifically, he asks: is morality the same thing as the commands of God? Is there no morality if there is no God? Stephen thinks the answer to both these questions is 'no'. He argues that, if you believe God exists and that we should follow his commands *for certain reasons*, then you should *not* think that morality just is whatever God commands.

Reason and Impartiality Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and second, morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.

Moral Reasoning When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we just know what the truth is, without even having to consider arguments on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be nothing but the by-products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.

Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments. Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good reason. There are bad arguments as well as good ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in discerning the difference. The first thing is to get one’s facts straight. The facts exist independently of our wishes, and responsible moral thinking begins when we try to see things as they are. Next, we can bring moral principles into play. In our three examples, a number of principles were involved: that we should not “use” people; that we should not kill one person to save another; that we should do what will benefit the people affected by our actions; that every life is sacred; and that it is wrong to discriminate against the handicapped. Most moral arguments consist of principles being applied to particular cases, and so we must ask whether the principles are justified and whether they are being applied correctly. The rote application of routine methods is never a satisfactory substitute for critical thinking, in any area. Morality is no exception.

The Requirement of Impartiality Almost every important moral theory includes the idea of impartiality. This is the idea that each individual’s interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment. At the same time, impartiality requires that we do not treat the members of particular groups as inferior, and thus it condemns forms of discrimination like sexism and racism.

The Minimum Conception of Morality We may now state the minimum conception: Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action. This paints a picture of what it means to be a conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral agent is someone who is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does; who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified; who will “listen to reason” even when it means revising prior convictions; and who, finally, is willing to act on these deliberations. As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this “minimum.” This picture of the conscientious moral agent has been disputed in various ways. However, theories that reject it encounter serious difficulties. This is why most moral theories embrace the minimum conception, in one form or another. We respond differently when there is a “crisis.”

We have duties to others simply because they are people who could be helped or harmed by what we do. If a certain action would benefit (or harm) other people, then that is a reason why we should (or should not) perform that action. The common-sense assumption is that other people’s interests count, from a moral point of view. Some people believe that we have no duties to others. On their view, known as Ethical Egoism, each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. This is the morality of selfishness. It holds that our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other people matter only insofar as they can benefit us. Ethical Egoism claims that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. People ought to be self-interested and that our neighbors ought not to give to charity. Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or about the way things should be. Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts that each person does, in fact, pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. People are self-interested and that our neighbors will not give to charity. Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature, or about the way things are.

Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that—the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead. The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their customs turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community, a dominant male might demand—and get—reg...