meta-ethics. moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our culture abortion gay marriage capital...

META-ETHICS

Moral disagreement seems to be widespread in our culture

Abortion Gay marriage Capital punishment Genetically modified

food Legalization of

marijuana

Moral disagreement seems to be even more widespread between different cultures (& historical periods)

Slavery Cannibalism Female “circumcision” The use of terrorism for

political ends…

Suttee (or Sati)

People argue about moral issues

In a moral argument, we often give people reasons aimed at persuading them that our own position is correct and that their position is incorrect.

A different sort of case: chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream

Chocolate ice cream

tastes better

Nope, it’s vanilla all the way

Intervention

We recognize that some moral issues are very complex and difficult, and that our view on those issues might be mistaken.

On other issues, we are confident that our own views are correct and that people who do not share our views are mistaken. Sometimes we are even prepared to try to stop people acting on moral views that we take to be mistaken.

Examples: suttee & the use of terrorism

Normative Ethics vs. Meta- or Critical Ethics

Normative Ethics is the branch of philosophical inquiry that tries to answer substantive moral questions like: – Should abortion be legal?– Should capital punishment be abolished?– Is gay sex immoral?

Meta-ethics

Meta- or Critical Ethics does not try to resolve moral disputes or to say what we should do. Rather, it tries to answer questions like:

– What do moral claims mean?– How can moral claims be justified?– Are there correct and incorrect (true & false) answers to

moral questions? If so, how is this possible?– Is there one set of moral principles that everyone should

follow? Or do different principles apply to people in different cultures?

Ethical Language

Before anyone can begin to establish what is good or bad moral behaviour, we need to establish if we can define these words.

The branch of moral philosophy which deals with this is meta-ethics – which asks what do words such as good/ bad/ right/ wrong actually mean.

Good/ Ought

The word good has many meanings and most of them are not used in a moral context:

e.g. My computer is good – it fulfils the task I want it to.

In the same way ‘ought’ is used in different contexts:

e.g. Teachers ‘ought’ to be kind to their students.

Subjective/ Objective

A key factor in all of this is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective.

Are they based on personal preference or on external facts?

If moral values are objective then they are true for everyone.

If moral values are subjective then there can legitimately be differences of opinion about how to act.

Cognitive/ Non-Cognitive

If morality is objective then it is also cognitive – cognitive language deals with making propositions about things which can be known and therefore proved true or false = Propositional View.

If morality is subjective then it is also non-cognitive – it deals with matters which are not simply resolved by proving they are true or false = Non-Propositional view.

Subjective/ Objective

A key factor in all of this is whether ethical dilemmas are subjective or objective.

Are they based on personal preference or on external facts?

If moral values are objective then they are true for everyone.

If moral values are subjective then there can legitimately be differences of opinion about how to act.

Meaning?

One main question within meta-ethics is

“Can ethical language have any meaning?”

If we are unclear about the nature and meaning of words, how can we make authoritative claims about how people should act?

Our Central question: Is Morality “Objective”?

About 65 million years ago an asteroid collided with the earth, and this led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

There is a prime number between 123,456 and 654,321.

All the shots fired at John F. Kennedy the day he was killed were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Saddam Hussein will be executed before Jan. 1, 2009.

On Wednesday, 5th of November, 2008, Mr. Thirkill wore odd socks during his Philosophy class.

“Objective”

Note two things about these sentences:– Each of these sentences is either true or false.– The truth or falsity of these sentences does not

depend at all on who makes the claim, when the claim is made or where the claim is made.

When a sentence has these properties, we’ll say that it makes an objective claim.

Some sentences are not “objective”

Example of a sentence that isn’t true or false:

– “Please pass the ketchup.”

– “Go to hell!”

Some sentences are not “objective”

Examples of a sentences whose truth depends on who makes them or when / where they are made:

– “I’m the oldest person in this room.”

– “It’s raining.”

I’m the oldest

I’m the oldest

The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective

The Appeal: It would make sense of the fact that we often talk and act as though moral claims are correct or incorrect, and that we sometimes seem to think that people (including people in different cultures) have moral views which are mistaken.

Capital punishment is right (in some

cases).

No! Capital punishment is

always wrong.

The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective

The Puzzles Metaphysics: If some

moral claims are true, then there must be facts that make them true. What could these facts possibly be?

The Appeal and the Puzzles of the View that Morality is Objective

Epistemology: How can we know which moral claims are true?

Is abortion morally

permissible?

Moral Objectivity and the Meaning of Moral Claims

To determine whether morality is objective we need to have a clear account of what moral claims mean.

Thus one of the central issues in meta-ethics – and the one we will focus on – is: What do moral claims mean? – “Abortion is morally wrong” means…??

God & Morality

The Supernaturalist Theory of the Meaning of Moral Claims (also known as “The Divine Command Theory)

The Theory: “x is morally wrong” means “God disapproves of x” (or “God forbids x”). “x is morally right” means “God approves of x” (or “God commands x”)

Example of the Supernaturalist theory

Don’t perform

abortions“Abortion is wrong”

=

Advantages of the Supernaturalist Theory

Offers answers to the metaphysical and epistemological puzzles

Don’t perform

abortions

Advantages of the Supernaturalist Theory (cont’d)

Makes moral claims objective. Offers a clear motivation to be moral.

Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory

It does not capture the meaning of moral claims made by atheists.

– Question: What does the theory entail if God does not exist?

Even many theists are more certain about some moral claims than they are about God’s existence.

Plato’s argument against the Supernaturalist Theory

Plato’s crucial distinction: Does God disapprove of actions because they are wrong? Or are they wrong because God disapproves of them?

Two analogies: – The brilliant mathematician: Does she think the theorem

is true because it is? Or is it true because she thinks it is?– The referendum: Did the voters vote against raising

property taxes because raising property taxes is illegal, or is raising property taxes illegal because the voters voted against it?

Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d)

If the Divine Command Theory is correct, then there is nothing intrinsically right in what God commands or intrinsically wrong in what He prohibits. These actions would not be right or wrong if He had not prohibited them.– So God’s commands are morally arbitrary.

Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d)

Thus it is conceivable that God might have decided to command other things and prohibit other things.

So, according to the Supernaturalist theory:

– Murder could have been morally right, and

– Honesty could have been morally wrong.

Thou shalt commit

murder; thou shalt not tell

the truth

Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d)

But it seems absurd to say that God might have commanded us to steal, murder & rape. He could not have commanded us to do these things because

– they are wrong,– being omniscient, He knows they are wrong, and– being morally good, He would not command us to do what

is morally wrong. If this is right, then it is not God’s commands that

makes things right or wrong – though these commands may be an important source of our knowledge of what is right & wrong. (Compare with the mathematician.)

Disadvantages of the Supernaturalist theory (cont’d)

Another problem: If the Divine Command Theory is correct, then we are not praising God when we say that He is morally good. We are simply saying that God approves of what God approves of.

“x is morally right” “God approves of x”

“God approves of things that are morally right”

“God approves of things that God approves of”

=

=

If

Then

Simple Subjectivism

The Theory: “x is morally wrong” means “I disapprove of x”. “x is morally right” means “I approve of x”.

Capital punishment is right (in some

cases).

In some situations, I approve of

capital punishment.

=

Simple Subjectivism and the objectivity of moral claims

If simple subjectivism is true, then moral claims are not objective– They are true or false– But the same ethical statement can be true if

made by one person and false if made by another person.

Objections to simple subjectivism

If it were true, then just about all moral disagreement would be an illusion.

I don’t disapprove of

abortion

I disapprove of abortion

Abortion is morally

permissible

Abortion is morally wrong

=

Objections to simple subjectivism

If it were true, then we could not be wrong when we make (sincere) moral judgments.

Killing Jews is morally

OK.

I don’t disapprove of killing Jews.

FALSE? TRUE

Cultural Relativism

Eskimos– Are polygamous– Indulge in ‘wife-lending’– Commit infanticide– Leave their elderly parents

in the snow to die…

Cultural Relativism

Akamarans– Are modern-day

cannibals

Cultural Relativism [more]

There are two kinds of cultural relativism Both unpack the meaning of moral claims by

appeal to the moral codes that prevail in a culture.

They differ on which culture is important – the culture of the person whose acts are being morally evaluated (the “agent”) or the culture of the person doing the evaluating.

First type of cultural relativism: ‘Agent Relativism’

“It is morally wrong (right) for a to do x”

means “Doing x is prohibited

(permitted) by the moral code prevailing in a’s culture.”

It is morally right for

eskimos to kill their aged

parents

Parent-killing is permitted in eskimo

culture=

Agent relativism

Question:– If agent relativism is true, should the Akamarans

continue to indulge in cannibalism?

It is morally right for

Akamarans to continue

eating people

Cannibalism is permitted in Akamaran

culture

=

Agent relativism and moral objectivity

If Agent Relativism is correct, then moral claims are objective:- They are true or false- Whether a given claim is true or false does not depend on who

says it.

It is morally right for

Akamarans to continue

eating people

It is morally right for

Akamarans to continue

eating people

Objection to agent relativism

If agent relativism is true, then:– It makes no sense to criticize the moral codes of other

cultures, nor does it makes sense to say that an action which accords with the moral rules of the agent’s culture is wrong.

Thus it makes no sense to criticize the actions of the slave traders, Nazis or Al Qaeda terrorists.

The Nazis should not have operated

concentration camps.

Another illustration: agent relativism and the case of the missionaries

You Akamarans ought not to eat people

Is this right?

Second type of cultural relativism: ‘Speaker Relativism’

“It is morally wrong (right) for a to do x”

means “Doing x is prohibited

(permitted) by the moral code prevailing in my (i.e. the speaker’s) culture.”

It was morally

wrong for the Nazis to

exterminate Jews

Exterminating Jews is

forbidden in 21st century American

culture

=

Speaker relativism and moral objectivity

If speaker relativism is correct, then moral claims are not objective.– They are true or false, but– Whether a given moral claim is true or false

depends on who is making the claim.

It is morally wrong for

Akamarans to eat people

It is morally wrong for

Akamarans to eat people

Objections to speaker relativism (1)

Moral disagreements across cultures are an illusion.

You Akamarans ought not to eat people There’s

nothing wrong with

Akamarans eating people

Objections to speaker relativism (2)

If speaker relativism is right, then moral criticism of the moral code of one’s own culture is incoherent.

– Example: the slave trade reformer

This is NOT

RIGHT!

Emotivism

The distinction between asserting you have a feeling and expressing that feeling.

Examples– “I am disgusted by your behavior.” vs. – “I am in severe pain.” vs. “Ouch!!!!!!”– “I am sexually aroused.” vs. ….

Assertions are either true or false; expressions of feelings are not.

Emotivism

The central idea of Emotivism is that, while moral claims look like assertions, they are actually expressions of feeling.

Thus Emotivism is sometimes described as The “Rah!! Boo!!” Theory.

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Abortion…grrr!

Emotivism

Gay people ought to be allowed to

get married.

= Gay marriage… yeah!!

Emotivism and moral ‘reasoning’

Question: according to Emotivism, what’s going on when you try to persuade someone to have the same moral attitude as you?

Abortion is morally wrong! It’s killing an

innocent human being, it’s murder…

Emotivism and moral reasoning

Unlike some other emotive expressions, the emotive expressions used in ethical claims have a tendency to have a persuasive or “magnetic”

effect on listeners – perhaps because of childhood conditioning.

Abortion.. Grr!

Eating ice cream out of the tub.. Ew.

Emotivism, again

So a fuller account of the meaning of a moral sentence might be:

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Abortion… Grrr! Please share this attitude.

Abortion…

. Please share this attitude.

=

or,=

Advantages of Emotivism

Captures the link between ethics and emotions.

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Advantages of emotivism

Emotivism can explain moral disagreement: if you think abortion is morally OK and I think it is morally wrong, then:– It’s not that one of us has a false belief, but– our desires conflict with one another.

Rachels’ example: “I favor gun-control legislation, and you are opposed to it”

Emotivism and objectivity

Abortion is morally

wrong!

Abortion… Grrr! Please share this attitude.

Abortion…

. Please share this attitude.

=

or,=

Disadvantages of Emotivism

If Emotivism is correct, then morality is not objective, thus

– it makes no sense to say that other people’s moral views are mistaken

– nor does it make any sense to say that our own previous moral views were mistaken.

Abortion… Grrr!

No it isn’t.

???

Disadvantages of Emotivism

Killing Jews is morally

OK.

THAT’S NOT

TRUE!

Disadvantages of Emotivism

The Emotivist account of moral argument and moral deliberation does not distinguish between moral arguments that (A) invoke false factual claims, vs(B) invoke true factual claims.

But we tend to think that moral attitudes formed under the (b) conditions are better justified than those formed under the (a) conditions.

Using false factual claims to influence emotions

Capital punishment

is right.

But 10% of people jailed

for murder are later found innocent.

Capital punishment

is right.

But it’s cheaper to jail someone for life than try them for the

death sentence.

Appealing to personal interest to influence emotions

Abortion is wrong.

If you say that, your sister is immoral.

Abortion is wrong.

An unwanted baby wreck’s the mother’s

life.

Relying on abnormal psychological states to influence emotions

Capital punishment

is wrong.

But that b******d

murdered your father!

Capital punishment

is wrong.

But ‘an eye for an eye’ seems to be a good principle of

justice, doesn’t it?

The Qualified Attitude Theory (QAT)

A very sophisticated account of the relation between morality and emotions or “attitudes”.

Basic idea: Moral claims are not claims about our actual attitudes; they are claims about the feelings, attitudes & preferences we would have if circumstances were “ideal” for making a moral judgment.

‘Ideal’ circumstances

Those circumstances include:– Being impartial (not being personally involved in

the situation)– Being fully informed about all the relevant facts– Being psychologically normal – not insane, drunk,

depressed, grief stricken, fatigued etc.

QAT: The theory:

Marijuana ought to be legalized

If I was ideally

situated, I would have a

positive attitude towards

legalizing marijuana.=

Advantages of the QAT

Does a good job at accounting for moral argument and deliberation

– In trying to decide what we think (or trying to persuade others to agree with us) we look for considerations which indicate what attitude we (or they) would have if we (or they) were impartial, fully informed, etc.

Capital punishment

is wrong.

But ‘an eye for an eye’ seems to be a good principle of

justice, doesn’t it?

Advantages of the QAT (II)

Since moral claims are true or false, the QAT– Makes it clear how other people’s moral views

can be mistaken.– Makes it clear how our own moral views can be

mistaken.

Capital punishment

is wrong.

The QAT and objectivity

If the QAT is correct, are moral claims objective?– They are true or false– But could two people continue to disagree even if they both

were Impartial Fully informed about the relevant facts Psychologically normal?

– The answer is far from clear. – If it is yes, then if the QAT is correct, moral claims are not

objective.

Examples

Killing Jews is morally

OK.

Capital punishment is right (in some

cases).

No! Capital punishment is

always wrong.

No! Killing Jews is wrong.