Moral reasons Flashcards
How can we define morality?
Descriptively and Normatively
Descriptively
Refers to claims about the way things are
Normatively
Refers to claims about the way things ought to be
What is morality in the descriptive sense?
The codes of conduct that happen to have been followed by different societies and groups
What is morality in the normative sense?
The codes of conduct that ought to be followed by all rational persons
In what sense are philosophers interested in morality?
The normative sense, i.e. the code of conduct that we ought to follow
Can normative claims be inferred from descriptive premises?
No
What is morality described as sometimes?
A code of conduct
How may we understand morality as a code of conduct?
It comprises of a set of norms/set of general standards/rules/principles in respect to which human conduct may be judged or directed
What are the different kinds of norms?
Social, legal, epistemic
What are social norms?
Rules that govern behaviour in groups/societies
What are legal norms?
Rules that govern behaviour in legal settings or in respect to the law
What are epistemic norms?
Rules governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance and belief relinquishment
What links these norms?
They are all general standards/rules/principles in respect to which human actions may be judged
What do norms express?
General reasons for action
What type of norms are we interested in?
Moral norms
Why are we interested in moral norms?
They offer us moral guidance and can be used as a bases for moral judgement
How is morality defined then?
In the normative sense, as a code of conduct that would be followed by rational persons
Why does Elizabeth Anscombe think morality as a code of conduct is an idea which is fundamentally flawed?
Because codes of conduct rely on code givers, and there isn’t anyone who could fit this role
How is morality similar to the law?
Like moral norms the law describes a set of general standards to which human actions may be judged directed towards
How is morality different to the law?
Those who have broken the law can still be held responsible regardless of if they were ignorant or its content or if it would have been irrational to have followed the law
What is the law not which morality is?
Public
Public
Knowable by all who they apply to and rational to anyone to follow them
How is morality similar to social norms?
Like moral norms, social norms set a general standard to which human actions may be judged and some social norms are public
How is morality different to social norms?
Unlike morality, social norms only offer reasons for action if they align with one’s desires/interests, it is permissible to flout a social norm but not a moral norm
We must adhere to a moral norm even when…
They do not align with our own desires/interests
Hypothetical imperative definition (Kant)
The practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something else that one wills
Hypothetical imperative =
If you want a, you ought to b
Categorical imperative definition (Kant)
That which represented an action as objectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end
Categorical imperative =
You just ought to b
When does the hypothetical imperative evaporate?
If the addressee does not share the relevant end or desire
Does the categorical imperative evaporate?
No, the action is objectively necessary in itself so it does not evaporate regardless of whether the addressee shares the relevant end/desire
Social norms =
Hypothetical imperatives, don’t have to obey them if they have no interest
Moral norms =
Categorical imperatives, even if they have no interest still need to observe the norms
How is morality similar to the rules of a club?
The rules of a club set out some general standards to which human behaviour can be judged, the rules are public and inescapable
Inescapable
The rules still hold regardless of whether they align with one’s desires/interests and there is no way to avoid sanction for violating the norms of morality
How are moral norms different to the rules of a club?
Unlike moral norms, the rules of a club are escapable in a different way, you could just leave the club
How are moral norms ‘inescapable’ in a much stronger sense than the rules of a club?
There is no way to escape being liable to sanction for violating the norms of morality, except ceasing to be a moral agent
How do moral norms differ from other kinds of rules?
They are public and inescapable
What is another feature of morality?
Authority
What does morality offer us?
Conclusive reasons for action
What does the theory of theological voluntarism offer?
Moral prescriptions are willed by/commands of God
What gives moral reasons their particular authority?
They are willed by/commands of God
What is theological voluntarism also known as?
The divine command theory
How does theological voluntarism answer Anscombe’s challenge
The code giver is God
Does theological voluntarism answer the authority of morality?
Yes, it explain why you ought to do it irrespective of other reasons to the contrary
Does theological voluntarism explain the universality of morality?
Yes, explains why they apply to everyone
Does theological meet the publicity condition?
Yes
Does theological voluntarism argue that moral norms ensure happiness?
No, moral norms are not necessarily compatible with securing their adherents’ happiness, no guarantee that morality will lead to a happy life
Divine punishment/rewrds
God’s commands have a higher sense of authority because they are backed by plausible threat of divine punishment/reward
Objections to threat of divine punishment/reward
Does the fact one has power to enforce one’s commands make them more legitimate? Is the reasoning for acting morally out of cowardice of the divine intervention of God?
Appeals to gratitude
God’s commands have a sense of authority because they are the commands of a loving God, we ought to follow them out of gratitude
Objections to appeals to gratitude
The appropriateness of repaying benefits with gratitude must itself be imposed by God
Appeals to goodness
God’s commands have a sense of authority because God only commands us to do things that are in fact good
Objections to appeals to goodness
If we say God’s knowledge of right/wrong explains why his commands serve as standard for us, we are committed to the idea that there are certain standards of morality which exist independently of God
What are the three attendant problems?
The incompleteness, redundancy and impotence objections
The incompleteness objection
If there are certain standards which exist independently of God, there is an area of morality which cannot be explained by God
The redundancy objection
If there are certain standards of morality which exist independent of God which can offer us guidance, the fact that God has commanded us to do these offers nothing further
The impotence objection
If there are certain standards of morality which exist independently of God’s will, there are certain things out og God’s power to change
Appeal to God’s pure will
God’s commands have a relevant sense of authority because they are the commands of God, because he wills it and his will is pure
Objections to the appeal to God’s pure will
The abhorrent command objection, the no reasons/arbitrariness objection, the incoherence objection
The abhorrent command objection
If it is only God’s commands that dictate moral goodness, then it is conceivable that God could command us to do bad/wrong things
The no reasons/arbitrariness objection
If God’s say-so is the sole reason for the morality, there is no reason things are wrong except God’s command. God’s commands are a reflection of his own choices, there are no prior reasons for them. Morality is therefore random
The incoherence objection
The ‘pure will’ system suggests that God’s will could proceed without a prior reason, this seems incoherent
Leibnitz undermining faith objection
If we are saying that things are only good by the virtue of the will of God, we destroy reason we have for loving God
The Euthyphro dilemma option 1
Either argue that God’s commands are determined by his perfect knowledge of right/wrong, which renders theological voluntarism open to incompleteness, redundancy and incoherence
The Euthyphro dilemma option 2
Argue that God’s commands are expressive simply of God’s pure will and thereby render theological voluntarism open to abhorrent commands, arbitrariness, incoherence
Adams response to the Euthyphro dilemma
Modified Divine Command Theory, act a is wrong if and only if a is contrary to the commands of a loving God
How does Adams avoid the problems of the Euthyphro dilemma?
By focusing on what a loving god would do, avoids the no reason problem and the abhorrent commands, God wouldn’t command cruelty
How does the modified command theory avoid the problem of impotence?
God is the source of morality, morality is grounded in the character of God. God is not subject to moral law but moral law is a feature of God’s nature
