Ethics # 9
Moral differences Can run from the simple (I didn’t call you to cancel
lunch), to the more complex (I support X candidate, and you support Y) to the seemingly insurmountable (Bob believes it’s a sin to seek medical attention for his kids due to his religious beliefs).
Moral Nihilism There is no morally right or wrong viewpoint. Our opinions
do not matter, as there is no “right” or “wrong.”
Moral Skepticism We can’t know what moral truths are, but they probably exist.
Moral Subjectivism My morality is a result of my inner state which can’t be
compared to yours. Thus, my moral viewpoint is only valid for me.
Ethical relativism No universal moral truths. Each culture has its own set of
rules. “Custom is king.”
Soft Universalism Deep down, we can agree on moral basics. This is likely
because of biological fact.
Hard Universalism (Moral Absolutism) There is one universal moral code.
It encourages noninterference. What if the culture sells children into the sex trade?
What if women are refused the right to vote?
No criticism or praise of other cultures Are we always wrong to criticize?
Majority rule What if you live in a society and don’t support the rules?
Does not permit civil disobedience, says that disagreement is wrong
What is a culture? Geography? Ethnicity?
Can Tolerance be a Universal Value? It has problems.
Can a relativist say tolerance is universally good?
We should look for bottom-line commonalities rather than what separates us.
James Rachels and three universal values A policy of caring enough for enough infants to ensure
group survival (not necessarily all)
Rule against lying
Rule against murder
Myself or Others
Are all acts selfish?
Are there self less good deeds?
What about people who risk their lives for others knowing the dangers?
Psychological egoism: humans are always looking out for themselves in some way, and it’s impossible for us to behave any other way.
Humans used to live in a presocial condition and then set up a society with rules: For the sake of the common good For the sake of self-protection
Decent people will do “unjust” things if they know they can get away with it.
Hobbes Humans choose to live in society with rules for no other
reason except we are concerned with our own safety Humans are by nature self-interested We would be fools if we didn’t look after ourselves.
We don’t always know the true motives for our actions, but they are always selfish. Fame, guilt, expectation of retribution now or in the
afterlife.
Removes the halo from every hero and seemingly unselfish person.
Why is this an appealing theory? Honesty
Cynicism (we have a hard time believing good things about people).
Excuses our behavior (it’s my nature!)
Falsification is not possible: doesn’t allow for the possibility of counterexamples. Bad thinking to not allow for cases where the theory doesn’t apply?
Doing what we want isn’t always selfish: it’s what you want that matters, not just the fact that you want something (I want to save you vs. I want to hurt you).
Fallacy of the suppressed correlative: without contrast, there is no understanding of the meaning. The word or idea becomes meaningless.
Explains altruism in our and other species.
When we do something apparently self less, we are less concerned with survival of individual and more concerned with survival of genes.
Ayn Rand
People have a right, even a duty, to look after themselves and seek their own happiness.
Moral cannibalism to make people feel obligated to help those who have no wish to help themselves.
Duty of government is only to protect from foreign invasion and to uphold law and order.
Criticism: doesn’t create a better world
Self-contradictory If you are looking after yourself, and your neighbor is
looking after himself, could be at cross purposes.
Carries no weight as a solver of conf licts If you and I disagree, who is to say who is right?
Doesn’t work in practice Your rule that everyone should look out for themselves
will not work to your advantage.