Ethics Flashcards
Two opposing ethical theories and definitions
Moral Relativism: belief that moral propositions don’t reflect absolute and universal truths and what is morally right and wrong varies between people, societies, cultures etc.
Moral Absolutism: there are objective, absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions.
What has led to the rise of Ethical Relativism?
1) The decline of religious belief and the loss of God as a moral absolute
2) The Rejection of Moral imperialism (imposing own set of values on another culture) /ethnocentrism (evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions due to standards and customs of one’s own culture)
3) Increase in Individualism
4) Many reject moral absolutism because they mistakenly equate it with moral realism
5) Cultural Anthropology and greater awareness of moral diversity
What is Meta Ethics?
Branch of philosophy that focuses on foundation of morality itself, not a normative theory (what is moral), but focuses on what morality itself is.
What is the Grounding Problem?
The search for foundation for our moral beliefs, something solid that would make them true in a way that is clear, objective and unmoving
Difference between moral realism and moral antirealism
Realism is the belief that there are moral facts in same way as scientific fact and any moral position can be only true or false.
Anti realism is the belief that moral propositions don’t refer to objective features of the world at all and there are no moral facts that make actions inherently right or wrong
Forms of Moral Realism
All hold that there are moral facts
-Moral Absolutism: Objective moral standards against which moral questions can be judged
-Moral Relativism: More than one moral position can be correct, still believe in moral facts yet they are different depending on external factors
-Cultural Relativism: Descriptive and Normative
Descriptive CR = people’s moral beliefs differ from culture to culture
Normative CR = Not beliefs but moral facts themselves differ from culture to culture
Forms of Moral antirealism
Moral Subjectivism: moral statements can be true or false or right or wrong but they only refer to people’s attitudes rather than the action itself. Moral attitudes, not facts.
Argument for Relativism
Diversity and Dependency thesis provide an argument in favour for the idea that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture.
Diversity thesis- the empirical observation that not everyone agrees upon what actions are forbidden by moral law. Different people and societies may have different views of the morality of the same action, what obligations we have as humans to each other and what the most important values are. There are no moral principles that all societies or people accept.
Dependency thesis- All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance and the validity of moral obligations/values depends upon beliefs of moral agents (subjectivism) or cultural groups (conventionalism).
Conclusion: There are no universally valid moral principles or objective standards which apply to all peoples at all times in history.
Criticism of Relativism argument
American Philosopher Louis Pojman (1935-2005)
The Diversity Thesis is hard to disprove as it is simply a statement of fact. Cultural relativism exists even if it does not “establish the truth of ethical relativism, for it could be the case that some cultures simply lack correct moral principles.”
Distinguishes between the Weak dependency thesis, which is the idea that applications or expressions of moral beliefs or principles can differ across cultures, and the Strong dependency thesis, which is that moral beliefs or principles themselves are products of the culture and can differ from culture to culture
Pojman then argues that the relativist argument fails to demonstrate the validity of the strong dependency thesis and the relativist has to show somehow that moral principles themselves are essentially cultural decisions and the products of individual cultures.
Leads to Subjectivism and Conventionalism which are problematic for their own reasons (on other card).
Types of Relativism
Subjectivism
Conventionalism
Utilitarianism
Subjectivism and issues
Relativist theory, argues that answers to moral issues are determined by individuals’ subjective beliefs and therefore moral beliefs about actions aren’t objectively true or false but simply a matter of opinion.
Issues:
Disagreements about ethical issues now redundant as each persons belief is equally as valid
Can be seen as self-defeating as the opinion that subjectivism is correct is simply one’s own opinion and therefore true only to you
It violates the Aristotelian law of the excluded middle which states that any proposition can only be true or false with no alternative option.
Argue that this means “Morality” has no meaning as it cannot resolve interpersonal conflict because it rests on neither some objective standard or even social convention.
No interpersonal criticism or judgment is logically possible. On the basis of subjectivism, Hitler could be perceived to be as moral as Gandhi as long as each thought he was living according to his chosen beliefs or principles.
How does it explain such things as a common language, common institutions, and other common things within a society?
Conventionalism
Adv and Disadv
Relativist concept that all moral judgements are subjective and that what is right and wrong is base on general agreement and social convention, whether they adhere to the societal norms of the group they belong to.
Adv:
May lead to some regularity and predictability of the response by moral agents if the conventional response is preferred response
Provides clear guidelines as moral agents will know that when they comply with the conventional moral standard their behaviour will be approved.
Disadv:
May rationalise or encourage a less than ideal mode of moral conduct if conventional moral response is inadequate and don’t evaluate the standards’ adequacy and validity
In extreme form may be regarded that best action is the most conventional regardless of consequences of or motivation for action
How do we determine what a society is? How large must a community or society be? Most societies today are comprised of many subcultures, and many of their members have different allegiances (religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, etc.)
How is reform possible within a conventionalist system? Reformers often go against cultural standards (see abolitionists like Wilberforce opposing slavery, e.g.). People like Martin Luther King, Jr. Jesus, or Gandhi would be wrong since they went against culturally accepted values 4. No intercultural moral critique is possible
Utilitarianism (utility = happiness)
ethical theory, states that the aim of ethics is to maximise happiness in the world. Consequentialist theory as there are no rules on what is right and wrong and can only make moral judgements by deciding which acts will bring about the happiest consequences.
Jeremy Bentham - Utility calculus
Bentham was a hedonist: believed we all naturally seek pleasure. Believed that whatever act brings about the most pleasure and least pain is the right action.
‘Nature has placed us under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain.’
Calculus is a guide to work out the amount of happiness likely to result from a decision, able to compare actions in dilemma
We should aim to ‘bring about the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’ of people
Came around the scientific revolution so the search for objective truth (doesn’t quite work with morality)
4 Steps of Bentham’s calculus
1) Focus on amount of happiness to be gained eg. intensity or duration of pleasure
2) Focus on effects of the action eg. how likely to be repeated/how likely pain will be result
3) Focus on effects on others
4) Finally, add up amount of pleasure/pain for each option and compare
How is Bentham’s calculus useful/not useful
Useful:
-In terms of providing a quantifiable system for decision making
-Quite thorough in its consideration of measuring aspects of pleasure
morally democratic approach tries to seek the fairest result
Bentham didn’t feel that the type of pleasure made a difference as saw that people can derive pleasure from different experience
Not Useful:
-issue of subjective experience and quality of pleasure concerned
-Kant questioned whether or not experience of pleasure can really be compared as sensations vary from person to person so individuals will reach different conclusions
-takes time so impractical to apply to every situation
-issue with rating system as doesn’t provide a scale
-Question whether or not motive should be a factor to include (deontological vs. teleological)
-If believe quality of pleasure makes a difference unlike Bentham then is an issue as doesn’t seem right to hold all types of pleasure in equal esteem.
