today’s lecture a comment about your final paper grade spreadsheet preliminary comments on ethics...

Today’s Lecture

• A comment about your final Paper

• Grade spreadsheet

• Preliminary comments on ethics and moral philosophy

• Plato

A comment about your final Paper

• I am giving you a bonus day of grace to get your final Paper in to me.

• Three things to note about this extra day of grace:

• (1) It means that IF you get your paper to me, or the assignment drop box, by 4:00 p.m. on August 11th, THEN you will not receive any late penalties for your paper.

• (2) This extra day of grace only applies to your Paper.

• (3) Technically, this does not change the due date for the paper (which remains August 8th).

• (4) If you have any extra day s of grace remaining you can add them to this bonus day.

Third in-class quiz and grade spreadsheet

• I have placed a randomized grade spreadsheet on the course website (look for your grades under the columns associated with your student ID number). Please check to ensure that the data matches what you have.

• If there are any discrepancies, come and see me.

Preliminary comments on ethics and moral philosophy

• Moral philosophy involves (1) the critical examination of our moral practices, orperspectives, (2) an examination of what we mean by certain moral terms, or ourstandards for what makes a reason a good one for holding a certain moral principle orperspective, (3) or a critical examination of certain moral problems.


• Moral philosophy is said to be normative, rather than descriptive.

• That is to say, instead of examining what we believe, or have believed, is right or wrong, good or evil, across cultures or time, moral philosophers inquire into the nature of right action or the good, or, alternatively, what normative ethical theory provides the best understanding of right action or the good (FP, p.595).


• A normative ethical theory can be understood in the following ways:

• (1) A normative ethical theory (or moral theory) provides an understanding of right action or the good and the means to make moral judgments about a given action or character trait.

• (2) A normative ethical theory (or moral theory) helps to unify our moral judgments by providing an overarching principle or set of principles which, when followed, yields those moral judgments we take to be correct.

• (3) A normative ethical theory helps to provide a perspective from which we can make those moral judgments we take to be correct (FP, p.595).


• The branch of moral philosophy that provides an analysis of our moral discourse or reasoning, touching on both moral epistemology and metaphysics, is known as Meta-Ethics (FP, p.596).

• The branch of moral philosophy dealing with the nature of right action or the good is known as Normative Ethics (FP, p.595).

• The branch of moral philosophy dealing with which actions are right or which character traits are good is known as Applied Ethics (FP, p.596).


• The primary division among normative ethical (or moral) theories is between Deontological and Consequentialist normative ethical theories (FP, p.595).

• Deontologists differ from Consequentialists in how they fix or determine right or wrong action, or good or evil.

• Deontological normative ethical theories can be understood as theories of duty (deontos means ‘duty’; logos can mean ‘theory’).


• Deontologists differ from Consequentialists in treating our moral notion of the right as more fundamental than the good.

• Also, Deontologists do not give weight to the consequences of actions when determining which actions are right or wrong.

• Certain actions, according to Deontologists, are intrinsically wrong or intrinsically right.

• Consequently, we have duties not to perform actions which are wrong, no matter the beneficial consequences, and duties to perform actions which are right, no matter the harm they may bring about.


• Consequentialists, as I have already implied, treat our moral notion of the good as more fundamental than the right.

• Actions which maximize the aggregate good are considered right, while those which minimize the aggregate good are considered wrong.

• Of course, what counts as the good in Consequentialism varies with the philosopher. Some see it merely as maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Others see it as maximizing preference satisfaction.

• Regardless of the favored view of the good, actions are, according to Consequentialists, extrinsically right or wrong, depending on their overall consequences.


• Think of a particular moral problem or dilemma (loosely construed). Say, the moral status of abortion.

• For the Deontologist the question is whether performing or having an abortion accords with our duty…regardless of the anticipated or actual results or consequences arising from performing or having an abortion.


• Imagine that having or performing an abortion does not, in any circumstances, accord with our moral duty. Perhaps, in waxing Kantian, a rational being cannot will such an action under the maxim that, when the consequences of giving birth will make life difficult for the mother, the pregnancy can be terminated. After all, the rational being in question cannot rule out the possibility that she is the fetus in question.


• In such a scenario, the Deontologist will judge the having or performing of an abortion as wrong. It will remain a wrong act even if the pregnant woman or girl would be better off (happier, less psychologically scarred) having an abortion.


• In contrast, if the performing of or having an abortion in relevantly similar circumstances tends to maximize the aggregate happiness of the relevant moral community (say human beings…out of which a sizeable sub-set are women or girls), the Consequentialist (who understands the good as that which maximizes the aggregate happiness of the relevant moral community) will judge such an action right.


• A normative ethical theory that is notoriously difficult to categorize as either Deontological or Consequentialist is Divine Command Theory. In part the problem arises because it contains elements of both general philosophical perspectives.


• Divine Command Theory can be characterized as holding three fundamental principles: (1) The God or Goddess is infallible on matters of morality, (2) He or She has clearly revealed certain prescriptions, proscriptions or moral exemplars, and (3) all actions must conform to said prescriptions or exemplars if they are to be properly regarded as right, while actions that go contrary to what is proscribed or to the available moral exemplars are properly regarded as wrong.


• It would seem that Divine Command Theory is straight forwardly Consequentialist. After all, what is right or wrong is decided by what conforms to the expressed will of the Deity. Thus actions are extrinsically right or wrong.

• On the other hand, Divine Command Theory has Deontological features. An action is right or wrong quite irrespective of whether it maximizes an aggregate good in the community of moral equals. Some Divine Command Theorists would also have it that the Deity’s own judgments concerning right action or the good, as revealed in Her or His expressed will on the matter, are grounded in the actual moral quality of said actions or character traits.


• Divine Command Theory stands or falls on the following issues:• (1) Whether the God or Goddess exists.• (2) Whether the God or Goddess is a Perfect Being (or, at the

very least, morally infallible, omnibenevolent and able to communicate His or Her moral knowledge).

• (3) Whether the God or Goddess has revealed His or Her will to humanity.

• (4) Whether we can know with assurance that a given set of prescriptions, proscriptions or moral stories are the revealed will of the Deity.

• (5) Whether the prescriptions, proscriptions or moral stories reflect universal and ‘timeless’ moral truths.


• Some of the considerations we have already discussed are relevant to some of these issues.

• Plato raised his own problems for Divine Command Theory, or at least its classical Greek counterpart, in his dialogue Euthyphro (it’s a small dialogue and well worth the read).

• Two of Plato’s concerns regard who, or what, speaks for the Deity and the criteria for how we can know this. These are indeed two of the pressing problems for the Divine Command Theorist.

• The dialogue has also inspired those philosophers who have proffered the following dilemmas for the Divine Command Theorist.


• (1) Either the good is loved by the Deity because it is good, or it is good because it is loved by the Deity.

• (2) Consider the possibility that it is good because it is loved by the Deity.

• (3) If it is good because it is loved by the Deity, then its goodness is extrinsic.

• (4) If the Deity’s choice to love that which is good was free, then S/He could have chosen otherwise.

• (5) If the Deity’s choice to love that which is good was not free, then S/He is not a free being.

• (6) If the Deity is not a free being, then S/He is not a Perfect Being.


• (7) If the Deity is not a Perfect Being, then S/He cannot be said to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent (without further argument).

• (8) Since that conclusion is unacceptable, consider the view that the Deity’s choice to love that which is good was free.

• (9) It is false, then, to claim that what is good is necessarily so, it might have been otherwise.

• (10) Strong moral objectivity or absolutism requires universal and timeless moral truths.

• (11) Universal and timeless moral truths concern that which is necessarily good.

• (12) It is false, then, to claim that the best ground for strong moral objectivity or absolutism is the will of the Deity.


• There is another problem attaching to the view that the good is so (i.e. is good) because it is loved by the Deity.

• (1) Consider the claim ‘The Deity is good’, a claim required for Perfect Being Theology.

• (2) If the good is so because it is loved by the Deity, then the claim ‘The Deity is good’ amounts to the claim that ‘The Deity is that which is loved by the Deity’.

• (3) But this is not what is meant by the claim ‘The Deity is good’.• (4) So, it cannot be the case that the good is so because it is loved

by the Deity.

Preliminary comments on ethics and moral philosophy• (1) Either the good is loved by the Deity because it is good, or it is

good because it is loved by the Deity.• (2) Consider the possibility that the good is loved by the Deity

because it is good.• (3) Either we can also know the good or we cannot.• (4) Consider the possibility that we cannot know the good.• (5) If we cannot know the good, then we cannot know the good

for the good when it is revealed by the Deity.• (6) If we cannot know the good for the good when it is revealed

by the Deity and Divine Perfection requires moral perfection, then we cannot know that the Deity is Perfect.

• (7) If we cannot know that the Deity is Perfect, then we cannot know that the Deity is morally infallible.


• (8) If we cannot know that the Deity is morally infallible, then we cannot know whether we should accept the Deity’s judgments about the good.

• (9) If we cannot know whether we should accept the Deity’s judgments about the good, then we cannot rationally be Divine Command Theorists.


• (1) Either the good is loved by the Deity because it is good, or it is good because it is loved by the Deity.

• (2) Consider the possibility that the good is loved by the Deity because it is good.

• (3) Either we can also know the good or we cannot.

• (4) Consider the possibility that we can know the good.

• (5) If we can know the good, we need not rely on the judgments of the Deity.

• (6) If we need not rely on the judgments of the Deity, we need not be Divine Command Theorists.

• (7) So, we need not be Divine Command Theorists.

Plato• Probably lived between the years 427 and 347 B.C.E. (FP,

p.597).• He was an Athenian citizen (FP, pp.597-98).• He was a student of Socrates (FP, pp.597-98, 602).• Probably one of the most important philosophers, if not the

most important philosopher, in the Western Canon (FP, p.599).

• His life work touched upon almost all the major areas of philosophical thought and inquiry (FP, p.599).

• Founded the first European university in approximately 380 B.C.E. (FP, p.598).

Plato• A position often associated with Plato himself is the

metaphysical view that universals and property types instantiated in the sensible world are actually reflections of pure Forms, existing in a realm that is neither physical nor mental.

• For any given object in our environment, including ourselves, it is constituted by both Form and matter.

• Material objects are undergoing constant change, moving between being and non-being.

• Forms, on the other hand, are unchanging and eternal.• These Forms are only improperly perceived through experience,

as matter can only imperfectly receive, or ‘express’, any given Form.

Plato

• Our reason, through “pure thought” (FP, p.599), specially equips humanity to perceive the Forms directly.

• It is this only this perception of the Forms that yields knowledge, properly so-called.

• It is through philosophical reflection and discipline that an individual successfully achieves this perception (see Bailey’s discussion on pages 599-600 of your FP).

Plato

• Our readings will be primarily concerned with the motivations for being moral (i.e. with the question ‘Why be moral?’).

• It was Plato’s view that the moral life was the best life, most conducive to happiness, and the one in which the individual could express their highest humanity (FP, pp.600-601). (Confucius thought much the same thing.)

today’s lecture a comment about your final paper grade spreadsheet preliminary comments on ethics...

Documents

moral theory

moral judgments

moral theories

branch of moral philosophy

moral philosophers

moral practices

moral epistemology

moral discourse