Philosophical paper

Ethicsweek2taping3.ppt

Home >Reading homework help >Philosophical paper

WEEK TWO

Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more.

There is no such thing as "objective" right or wrong.

If you are involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It’s personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement.” – Michelle Bachmann

“Every sign of unjust discrimination (against gays) regard should be avoided. Nonetheless, "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "under no circumstances can they be approved." Therefore, to lead virtuous lives, homosexual persons must be chaste.- Catholic Church

We might say that homosexuality is immoral. But there is a third alternative:

People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no "facts," and no one is "right." People just feel differently, and that's the end of it.

Basic thought behind Subjectivism

Ethical Subjectivism applies to all moral matters. To take a different example, it is a fact that the Nazis exterminated millions of innocent people

According to Ethical Subjectivism, it is not a fact that what they did was evil. We have negative feelings toward their actions, that’s all.

Schools of thought develop through analysis and challenge. Theories are presented, scholars find their flaws. From this process, simple subjectivism evolved into Emotivism.

When a person says that something is morally good or bad, this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more.

Simple Subjectivism cannot account for disagreement.

We are sometimes wrong in our moral evaluations. But if Simple Subjectivism were correct, this would be impossible, because Simple Subjectivism implies that each of us is infallible

According to Emotivism, moral language is not used to state facts, but to express a desired outcome, to persuade.

Example:

Michelle Bachmann says “Homosexuality is immoral.”

Emotivists interpret that statement as ”Don’t be gay.”

These arguments show that Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism, are flawed theories because:

Subjectivism implies that our moral judgments are beyond reproach

It cannot account for moral truth and falsehood

It cannot account for the place of reason in ethics

Fails to meet the Minimum Conception of Morality

Any adequate theory of the nature of moral judgment should be able to give some account of the connection between moral judgments and the reasons that support them

Subjectivists mistaken because they assume there are only two possibilities:

1. There are moral facts, in the same way that there are facts about planets and trees and spoons.

2. Our values are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings.

Moral truths are truths of reason; moral judgment is true if it is backed by better reasons than the alternatives

The answer to a moral question is the answer that has reason on its side. Such truths are objective in that they are true independently of what we might want or think

Moral thinking and moral conduct are a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them
Ethical Subjectivism seems to be going in the wrong direction.

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular moment. EMIL BRUNNER, THE DIVINE IMPERATIVE. (1947)

I respect deities. I do not rely upon them. MUSASHI MIYAMOTO, AT ICHIJOJI TEMPLE (ca. 1608)

United States is unusually religious.

90 percent of Americans believe in God

71 percent of Canadians

52 percent of the British

Denmark and Sweden, the figure is closer to 20 percent

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslim men..."

Thomas Jefferson
3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."

Priests and ministers are assumed to be wise counselors who will give sound moral advice when it is needed in the US- Why?

Historically, Hollywood has reinforced religion’s claim on morality through hyper-respectful religious films, in alignment with Hays Code:

VIII. Religion

1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.

The nature of right and wrong known as the Divine Command Theory
If we are to live as we should, we must follow God's laws.
In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is conceived as a lawgiver
We were created as free agents, so we may choose to accept or to reject His commandments

Atheists would not accept it

There are difficulties even for believers

“Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?”

Socrates – Euthyphro

This is one of the most famous questions in the history of philosophy

We can take the second of Socrates' options
God commands us to do certain things because they are right

God recognizes that truthfulness is better than deceitfulness and so commands us not to lie

God sees that killing is wrong, and so he commands us not to kill

and so on for all the moral rules

NATURAL LAW

The dominant theory of morality in the history of Christian thought is the Theory of Natural Law. The theory has three parts:

The world has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature

Things must serve their natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot, things have gone wrong

According to the Theory of Natural Law, beneficence is natural for us, given the kind of creatures we are- social creatures

The world has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature
This conception derives from the Greeks, whose way of understanding the world dominated Western thinking for over 1700 years
Everything in nature has a purpose.

In Aristotle’s view, man-made things as well as things in nature have a purpose
Artifacts such as knives have purposes
We have teeth so that we can chew

rain falls so that plants can grow

A corollary of this law is that the "laws of nature" not only describe how things are, but how things ought to be
Things must serve their natural purposes. When they don’t or can’t, things have gone wrong
Eyes that cannot see are defective, and drought is a natural evil; the badness of both is explained by Natural Law

According to the Theory of Natural Law, beneficence is natural for us, given the kind of creatures we are- social creatures

A confusion of "is" and "ought." In the 18th century, David Hume pointed out that “what is the case and what ought to be the case are logically different notions”
People naturally care much more about themselves than they do about strangers, but this is regrettable
Disease occurs naturally, but disease is bad.
The Theory of Natural Law seems to conflate values and facts

Its view of the world conflicts with modern science.
Galileo, Newton, and Darwin’s explanations of natural phenomena make no reference to values or purposes.
What happens just happens, due to the laws of cause and effect

To modern science "natural laws" are physics, chemistry, and biology, working blindly and without purpose

The idea that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man,” is only human vanity

Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the right thing to do is whatever course of conduct has the best reasons on its side. To use the traditional terminology, moral judgments are “dictates of reason”

“To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas -Summa Theologica

The religious believer has no special access to moral truth. The believer and the nonbeliever are in the same position- they can listen to reason and follow its directives

In an important sense, this leaves morality independent of religion. Religious belief does not affect the calculation of what is best
That was not what Saint Thomas Aquinas intended, but that is what his theory did.

The teachings of the Scriptures and the church are regarded as authoritative by some
For example, many Christians think that they must oppose abortion because it is condemned by the church and (they assume) by Scripture

Are there distinctively religious positions on major moral issues that believers are bound to accept?
Are those positions different from the views that people might reach simply by trying to reason out the best thing to do?
Many religions say yes

It is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the Scriptures
Where are the definite answers about exactly what position we should take concerning the rights of workers, the extinction of species, the funding of medical research, and so on?
Many consider these moral issues

Christians often site the first chapter of Jeremiah, in which God is quoted as saying “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”
They see this as indicating that the unborn has been consecrated by God and is therefore due all of the rights of a fully formed human

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Then I said, “Ah, Lord God! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth.” But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, I am only a youth for to all to whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Be not afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you,” says the Lord.

That was very clearly a prohibition against abortion, wasn’t it?
NOT! Jeremiah was saying that God had intended him to be a prophet even before Jeremiah was born
This often happens when the Scriptures are cited in connection with controversial moral issues

Exodus 21. This chapter is part of a detailed description of the law of the ancient Israelites. Here the penalty for murder is said to be death; however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid to her husband. Murder was not a category that included fetuses.

Often a few words are lifted from a passage that is concerned with something else entirely and used to support a moral judgment that the speaker has already made.
They assume God himself must share one's own moral opinions -now that’s arrogant!

Right and wrong are not to be understood in terms of God's will
Morality is a matter of reason and conscience, not religious faith
Morality and religion are, in a word, different
Not questioning the validity of religion, but pointing out this difference

Many might think that based on the arguments in this chapter, the author and I are suggesting that religious faith is worthless or uneducated.
NOT TRUE. Faith does a great many things for us as human beings. It gives us hope and strength and for many, a reason for living. As important as it is, it can not serve as a valid theory of morality and ethics.

ETHICAL EGOISM

The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose.

AYN RAND

THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS (1961)

Do we have moral duties to other people, and not merely duties that we create, such as by making a promise or incurring a debt?
The commonsense assumption is that other people's interests count from a moral point of view
Do you agree with this assumption?

Ethical Egoism is the idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively
This contradicts some of our deepest moral beliefs—beliefs held by most of us

Look at the money Americans donated to victims of the typhoon that devastated the Philippines and Hurricane Sandy

This theory is not easy to refute. We will examine the most important arguments for and against it
Ethical Egoism is not the same as Psychological Egoism
Ethical Egoism claims “ought”
Psychological Egoism asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or her own self interest alone

Psychological Egoism makes a claim about human nature
Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or about the way things should be.
If people are moved only by their own welfare, isn't it pointless to talk about what we "ought" to do?

Raoul Wallenberg example
He is credited with saving as many as 15,000 lives
Some people build homeless shelters. They volunteer in hospitals. They read to the blind. They give blood. Many people donate money to worthy causes; Billions each year

According to Psychological Egoism, we may believe ourselves to be noble and self sacrificing, but that is only an illusion. In reality, we care only for ourselves
The Argument is: “We Always Do What We Most Want to Do.”
That may be said about any alleged act of kindness, we can conclude that Psychological Egoism must be true.

The mere fact that you act on your own desires does not mean that you are looking out for yourself; rather, it depends on what it is that you desire.

The issue is not whether the action is based on a desire; the issue is what kind of desire it is based on
If what you want is to help someone else, then your motive is altruistic, not self-interested.

This argument goes wrong in just about every way that an argument can go wrong: The premise is not true, and even if it were, the conclusion would not follow from it.
The fact that someone has a self-interested motive doesn't mean that they don’t have benevolent motives as well.

If I see a child drowning, is my desire to help that child greater than my desire to avoid a guilty conscience?
If I quickly decide to jump into the water to save the child, I may not have time to think about myself at all. I may be thinking only of the child

Wesley Autrey- the construction worker who saved the life of a man who went into convulsions and fell onto the track of a subway train in 2007.
Oseola McCarthy who left $150,000 to endow a scholarship fund at the University of Southern Mississippi.
She saved her whole life. At 87 she walked a mile each way to the nearest grocery store.

Our desire to help others often comes first; the good feelings we may get are merely a by-product.
Self-regard does not account for all human action.
Every attempt to do so seems strained and implausible; Psychological Egoism is not a credible theory.

Ethical Egoism is the idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively.
According to Ethical Egoism, there is only one ultimate principle of conduct, that of self-interest, and this principle sums up all of one's obligations.

Each of us is familiar with our own individual wants and needs. We know the desires and needs of other people imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, if we set out to be "our brother's keeper," we will often bungle the job and do more harm than good

At the same time, the policy of "looking out for others’ is an offensive intrusion into other people's privacy
Making other people the object of one's "charity" is degrading to them
If each person looks after his or her own interests, it is more likely that everyone will be better off

“Thus God and nature link' d the general frame and bade self-love and social be the same”- Alexander Pope

We should adopt those policies because doing so will promote the betterment of society—according to Ethical Egoism, that is not something we should be concerned about

If we accept this reasoning, then we are not ethical egoists. Even though we might end up behaving like egoists, our ultimate principle is one of beneficence

Each person has only one life to live. If we value the individual—that is, if the individual has moral worth then we must agree that this life is of supreme importance.
The ethics of altruism regards the life of the individual as something one must be ready to sacrifice for the good of others. Therefore, the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of the individual.

Ethical Egoism, which allows each person to view his or her own life as being of ultimate value, does take the individual seriously—it is, in fact, the only philosophy that does so.
Thus, Ethical Egoism is the philosophy that we ought to accept.

One problem with this argument is that it assumes we have only two choices: Either we accept the ethics of altruism, or we accept Ethical Egoism.
In fact our own interests and the interests of others are both important, and must be balanced against each other.

Ordinary morality consists in obeying certain rules. We must speak the truth, keep our promises, avoid harming others, and so on.
Ethical egoists would say that all these duties are ultimately derived from the one fundamental principle of self-interest.

The duty not to harm others: If we make a habit of doing things that harm other people, other people will not mind doing things that harm us. If our offenses against others are serious enough, we may even end up in jail. Thus, it is to our own advantage to avoid harming others

The duty not to lie: If we lie to other people, we will suffer all the ill effects of a bad reputation. People will distrust us and avoid doing business with us.
Thus, it is to our own advantage to be truthful.

Thomas Hobbes suggested that the principle of Ethical Egoism leads to nothing less than the Golden Rule
But sometimes one can benefit from treating another person badly. The obligation not to harm the other person could not be derived from Ethical Egoism

The fact that doing something for others is also to one's own advantage might be only a secondary, less important consideration

Ethical Egoism endorses wicked actions—provided, those actions benefit the person who does them we can all think of examples.

If someone could benefit for while avoiding being caught, wouldn't Ethical Egoism say that such actions are permissible?

The Argument That Ethical Egoism Cannot Handle Conflicts of Interest

This view involves dividing people into groups and saying that the interests of some groups count more than others
Racism is the most conspicuous example
The Principle of Equal Treatment: We should treat people in the same way unless there is a relevant difference between them

Means that people are given equal treatment, not necessarily equal results. The draft lottery is a good example.

Ethical Egoism advocates that the world is divided into two categories—ourselves and the rest—and we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of the second group

Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. Both doctrines violate the Principle of Equal Treatment and the basic concept of Impartiality.

The question of why we should care about others
We should care about the interests of other people for the same reason we care about our own interests, for their needs and desires are comparable to our own

It is this realization—that we are on a par with one another—that is the deepest reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of others, and why, ultimately, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory.