Unit 2 - Ethics and Moral Reasoning Flashcards
What does Callahan mean by the distinction between descriptive and normative statements? Provide two examples of each.
Normative statements are questions or statements about values
Examples: Lying is ok so long as it protects the innocent or Was it right to steal the food for your family?
Descriptive statements are concerned with factual topics and are not concerned with values
Examples: Did you lie? or I did not clean up after my dog.
Moral issues are issues involving values and moral problems are dilemma’s in values i.e. choosing one value over another and so on
How does Callahan characterize the distinction between conventional morality and reflective morality?
Conventional morality is the following of tradition or custom without stopping to examine those rules or custom.
Reflective morality is when a person begins to reflect on the principles that will govern their actions, particularly when those actions will affect the rights and interests of other people. When a person has reflective morality, they have thought critically of the moral principals that guide their behavior and they act as autonomous moral agents that are not simply guided by external forces.
How does Callahan distinguish ethics from law, religion, and custom? Explain each of these distinctions that she draws with the use of examples.
Callahan distinguishes ethics from the following:
Law: The law permits many moralities such as disloyalties to friends, lying, cheating etc. and we generally want these things to stay legal otherwise the law would interfere to much with our individual lives. Law may even require immoral behavior such as the reporting of slave runaways. Morality may permit breaking a law such as breaking the speed limit to save a life. Although the law is often structured around morality it does not include the full depth of morality as it is practiced in everyday life. The law is always subject to moral criticism and scrutiny and whether someone should obey the law is morally an open question.
Religion: Religions and religious leader may advocate for things which are not necessarily moral, religious leaders can make mistakes or do things which are clearly immoral. Religion may provide moral conduct for individuals but when others are involved, morality must stand on its on philosophical feet. One cannot violate the rights of others who do no share the same views. Morality is not reducible to religion.
Custom: Some argue that ethics is mere taste, however moral decisions must be made with care. Morality involves principles that preference does not. Actions require justification that go beyond actions of mere preference. Finally, you cannot make a rational argument for a preference or a bias (why you should like this cured meat) but you can make a rational argument for ethical decisions or moral beliefs
Callahan discusses two kinds of ethical principle: teleological and deontological. Explain these two kinds of ethical principle. Use an example to illustrate the application of these two principles.
Teleological: Comes from telos meaning “end” or “goal”. Consequential, hold the moral value/disvalue is a function of its consequences. Such as Utilitarianism which argues that we should act to achieve the maximum happiness for the greatest number.
-Moral justification is based on something extrinsic i.e. something brought into the world or prevented from being brought up
Deontological: Comes from deon meaning “duty” or “that which is binding”. Consequences have no relevance to moral evaluation of actions or practices. Immanuel Kant argued that morality forbids us to lie even if a innocent person got killed, this still would not be sufficient to justify lying. Not all deontologists are this strict but they all argue that the principles of morality are best understood through duty rather than consequence although some still use elements of teleology.
-The action or consequence is of a certain kind, focuses on what is intrinsic to the act or practice.
Explain how Callahan characterizes the structure of moral reasoning. Identify and explain two ways in which a moral judgment could be challenged on the basis of this structure.
Callahan argues that the general structure of moral reasoning is as follows:
Premise 1 General Moral Principle (GMP) EX. (We should do what we can to protect the innocent)
Premise 2 Factual Claim(s) (FC) EX. (Capital punishment deters murderers)
Conclusion Derivative/Particular Moral Judgement (DMJ) EX. (We should practice capital punishment)
4 ways in which a moral judgement can be challenged:
Conceptual confusion in (GMP): Prod the concepts for inconsistencies (what is meant by unnatural? Is this really unnatural? and does this act like a law?) Is this GMP generalizable to other factors (Is unnatural always immoral? Such as a person flying). Coherence in the antithesis (are all things natural moral?) Does the concept rely on other principles i.e. a theological rather than moral one. Is the concept circular i.e. what is immoral is immoral.
Problems in the Factual Link:
- Mistaking a normative claim for a descriptive one
- Factual claim is lacking evidence
Unacceptable implications of GMP: GMP may be to broad and lead to immoral or undesirable implications (doing all we can to minimize harm would interfere with individual liberty)
Consistency Problems: Principles must be internally consistent and coherent. Consistency requires arguing for judgements relating to different cases on the basis of a complex principle(s).
