Notes for Class Six

Philosophy and Ethics

Questions regarding the nature of moral value are covered by normative ethics; questions regarding what we mean by moral reasoning or by giving justifications or reasons for making value judgments and being moral (in other words, why be moral?) are addressed in metaethics. Every complete moral doctrine considers both normative and metaethical questions: that is, every complete moral doctrine provides a theory for what is good or evil and a method for justifying why we should do the good and avoid evil.

Issues in Ethics: Ethicists ask the following kinds of questions:

• What does it mean to say that an action, belief, or person is morally good or bad?
• How does one go about deciding whether something is morally good or evil?
• What kinds of reasons should one consider when making moral judgments?
• Aren't all values relative to one's religion, the laws or customs of one's society, or one's own personal preferences?
• Why should I care about being moral?

How Ethics Differs from Law, Religion, Custom, and Personal Preferences:

Philosophical ethics is different from civil law insofar as the law attempts to resolve conflict in society by regulating behavior. Ethics, on the other hand, is concerned with determining the principles for resolving conflict both in belief and in the behavior or action based on those beliefs. Ethics thus emphasizes the reasons or principles (e.g., treating people justly) on the basis of which certain beliefs should be adopted and certain actions should be done or avoided. That is, ethics provides a standard for evaluating whether certain laws are good laws.

Ethics is different from religion insofar as ethics attempts to provide reasons for beliefs and behavior that do not rely on faith or adopting certain teachings or revelations. It also avoids problems with conflicts about different interpretations of those revelations by appealing to reason alone. Ethics appeals equally to believers and non-believers, and thus can be used to make judgments about whether some religious beliefs are good or bad.

Ethics is different from social customs or practices and personal preferences in that it examines whether customs, cultural practices, traditions, and personal preferences are rationally justified. It asks not whether social or personal beliefs and behavior are endorsed by people. Instead, it asks whether they should be endorsed, not only by those who adopt them but by any other reasonable person, regardless of his or her cultural or personal beliefs. Ethics thus provides a criterion or standard for evaluating customs, traditions, and personal beliefs.

Versions of Relativism

I. Subjective Relativism: all values are relative to the individual approves; the justification for doing something is based on the fact that the individual believes or feels that he/she should do it.

• Existentialists claim that values are chosen by each individual, and each individual must take responsibility for his/her choice without relying upon any constraint other than that the choice should not undermine or contradict the principle by which the choice is made. That is, for the existentialist, an immoral choice would be one in which someone freely chooses not to be free or to prevent another person from freely choosing to determine what he/she wants to do. So, for the existentialist, that which is valuable is what we choose as valuable; why we choose what we do is based on how it promotes or frustrates our further acting freely.

• Emotive theorists claim that, because moral judgments are not true by definition or empirically verifiable, they are neither true nor false (and are literally meaningless). Though such judgments tell us nothing about whether the action that a person does is right or wrong, they do express how a person feels about an action. So for the emotivist, regardless of the reason why we feel as we do (or whether we have any reason whatsoever), we act as we do because that is the way we feel. The moral value of an action is determined based on whether or not we like it, and whether or not we like it is what motivates us to do it or avoid doing it.

• Objections to Existentialism and Emotivism:
  • (1) If relativism is correct, then not even the most horrendous crime is wrong; it is only wrong, perhaps, from others' perspectives.
  • (2) Relativism is based on the false assumption that allowing others the freedom to act requires that we give them the freedom even to destroy the freedom of their own and others' freedom.
  • (3) Relativism assumes that no one can ever be in error about what he/she really wants for himself/herself; but, of course, that is not true.
  • (4) No society can survive where everyone is permitted to do whatever he/she feels like doing.
  • (5) Even the subjectivist appeals to objective and rational justifications to support his/her choice.

II. Cultural Relativism: the good is what a culture or society says is good; the reason for doing something is that it is approved by the culture. There is no neutral standpoint from which to judge the values of different cultures.

Objections to Cultural Relativism:

• (1) Just because a culture believes that its values are justified or that its beliefs are true does not make it so (as history shows).
• (2) While it may be true that cultures do differ about their values, that does not mean that they are justified in their views; just because their values are different does not mean that they should be different.
• (3) If whatever a culture believes is right is right, then how can there be any moral development or progress? Moral improvement occurs when some members of the culture persuade others that currently accepted values need to be changed, based on comparisons with a standard that transcends the moral values of the society. But how could that happen if everyone believed that the culture's values were always right?
• (4) The cultural relativist would have to tolerate the practices of other cultures, even those that were intolerant and cruel.
• (5) While cultural diversity may sound harmless and even beneficial, it is not necessarily so. Besides, how do we define the boundaries of the "culture" that decides the values?

To judge whether a belief, practice, or way of life is good, we have to appeal to a standard apart from law, religion, custom, tradition, or personal preference. That standard is human well-being (long-term satisfaction and peaceful fulfillment of basic needs such as food, freedom, and respect). A legal system, religion, individual belief system, or set of cultural traditions can be judged and evaluated philosophically based on how it endorses the ideals of satisfying basic material needs (e.g., food, medical care, rest) and social and psychological needs (e.g., being treated justly, fairly, and having one's individual liberty respected).

Of course, feeling satisfied and fulfilled is not the same thing as being satisfied and fullfilled: someone may be accustomed to being oppressed or resigned to the belief that he or she cannot get anything better out of life. That does not mean that the person is satisfied with his or her life. A truly satisfying life would be one in which basic needs are met and opportunities are available and able to be fulfilled. That is the philosophic standard for rationally evaluating different beliefs, practices, and ways of life.