Photos

The classic trolley problem.

Moral Theories

This chapter has the chicken-or-the-egg problem. We’re going to talk about how to evaluate moral theories, but we haven’t learned any moral theories yet so its going to be kind of confusing. But if we learned the moral theories before learning how to evaluate them, then they would be confusing. So we have to start somewhere, and your textbook starts here.

A moral theory is a set of ideas that tries to explain why good actions are good and why bad actions are bad. If somebody asks “why shouldn’t I cheat on my exams” your answer comes from a moral theory, even if its vague or incomplete (“cheating is dishonest to your professor,” “cheating is unfair to your other students,” “cheating only harms you in the long run”). Part of the purpose of this class is to help you turn your vague and incomplete moral theories into precise and more complete moral theories.

Different philosophers have proposed different moral theories which we will be discussing in module two. Different theories often agree on what is right and what is wrong, but sometimes they disagree. Many students assume that the ultimately best theory must be some combination of all the other theories. Be careful about this! This is not necessarily true. For some of the theories, there simply is no way off combining them, since they give opposite advice. There is no guarantee that the best theory is “in the middle.” There’s no guarantee that it isn’t in the middle either. The point is that you have to think critically about all the theories and wait until the end of the semester to make your final judgment about which theory is best.

How should we think critically about moral theories? This is tough, because thinking critically about moral theories involves not just thinking about what’s right and what’s wrong, it involves thinking about how to think about what’s right and what’s wrong. In other words, since theories try to explain what’s right and what’s wrong, we need a way of judging the explanation of what’s right and what’s wrong.

There are two criteria for judging how good a moral theories is: 1. Consistency with common moral sense (i.e. “considered moral judgments”): Some

moral facts are just obviously true, and a good moral theory should fit with these facts. If a moral theory says that something which is obviously a good thing to do is actually a bad thing to do, then that counts as a strike against the theory. Here’s some common moral sense:

a. Slavery is immoral. b. Its heroic to save someone from a burning building. c. Murder is really really bad. d. Its good to wish your grandmother a happy birthday. e. Democracy is more just than dictatorship. f. People should be free to worship (or not worship) God in their own way, so long

as it doesn’t hurt others (no sacrificing people). Sometimes our common moral sense is wrong, and if a moral theory violates just one or two pieces of our common moral sense, that’s not so bad – sometimes we should re-think what’s common sense. But if it violates all of our common moral sense, then the theory should definitely be rejected.

2. Usefulness in solving moral problems: some moral questions don’t have common sense answers, that’s why people disagree about them, and its also why moral theories are worth thinking about. A good moral theory gives us clear advice on what we should do in confusing moral situations.

a. Should we execute our worst criminals? Why or why not? b. Is it okay for us to close our national borders? Why or why not? c. What kinds of sexual behaviors are acceptable and which are unacceptable? Why

or why not? d. Should citizens pay for the healthcare of their fellow citizens who otherwise could

not afford it? Why or why not? Since moral theories are sets of ideas about what is right and what is wrong and why, a good moral theory (combined with scientific facts and observations) tells us what the right thing to do is in these various situations. If a theory cannot give us helpful advice, or if it gives us conflicting advice, then this is a strike against the theory.

Here’s a very simple moral theory: The Golden Rule: Treat others the way you yourself would like to be treated. Lots of people like this theory, but how well does it measure up to our two criteria?

1. At first it seems rather common-sensical. No one wants to be stolen from or murdered, and everyone wants to be helped when they are in need, so the rule says stealing and murder are bad and helping people is good – common sense! But what if people don’t want to be treated the way you would want to be treated? Imagine a sexual harasser at work who wishes that people touched them and make sexual comments to them all day. Since that’s what he (she?) wants, the golden rule says that it’s a good thing for them to sexually harass others. But that’s a big violation of common sense.

2. Also, how helpful is the golden rule for solving the trolley problem? Does it tell you to switch or not switch. If you were one of the 5 defualt victims, you’d probably want them to switch. If you were the 1 possible victim, you’d probably want them not to switch.

Your textbook divides moral theories into two categories. We’ll talk more about these in module 2. Consequentialist theories divide actions into right and wrong based on the consequences of the action. Roughly, right actions are those that actually make the world a better place overall and wrong actions are those that make the world a worse place overall. Non-consequentialist theories divide actions into right and wrong based on something other than the actual effects of the actions. One possibility is that people have moral rights that must be respected regardless of the consequences. Another possibility is that there are “moral rules” that always must be obeyed, perhaps God’s commands like “do not kill.”