Massimo Reichlin - facts principles and hard choices

facts principles and hard choices - readings

A.J. Ayer - critique of ethics | four main classes of ethics

1. propositions which express definitions of ethical terms or judgements about the legitimacy or possibility of certain definitions. (only one to constitute ethical philosphy)
   2. propositions describing the phenomena of moral experience and their causes
   3. exhortations to moral virtue (act of strongly encouraging or trying to persuade someone to do something)
   4. actual ethical judgements

ayer - subjectivists vs utilitarian view on question if ethical statements (statements of ethical value) can be translated to statements of empirical fact.

subjectivsits say no and utilitarians say yes. subjectivists are wrong bc things that are generally approved are not always right. saying thing is bad or wrong is contradictory. utilitarians say x = good / pleasurable, but is not the same.

ayer - ethical statements and the problem of language (ordinary)

‘wrong‘ is usually symbol of exprssing or evoking feeling or commanding. impossible to find criterion for evaluation or validating bc no objective validity.

eyer - how does his subjectivism differ from traditional?

orthodox subjectivists do not deny that sentences of a moralizer express genuine propositions. subjectivists assert that the expression (statement) of a feeling asserts the existence of certain feelings, ayer holds that ethical statrements are expressions and excitants of feeling which do not necessarily involve any assertations. orthodox ubjectivists hold theory that validity of ethical judgements is not determined by nature of authors feelings. feelings is not necesary or sufficient condition of validity of ethical judgement. ethical judgements have no validity.

ayer - moore’ s coutner argument against subjectivism

if ethical statement is abt speakers feelings, it is impossible to argue about questions of value. however feelings are disputed and subjectivism is false. dispute is not about value but about fact. only is facts are known and accepted but mroal judgment is different (bc different culture for example) we conclude that they have different values then our own. we can argue if A subscribes to moral value X, A should react morally in a way that is consistent with X. challenge to Moore: find wuestion of value that is not reducable to question of logic or about empirical matter of fact. if he can not, he must allow that its involving the impossiblity of purely ethical arguments is not a ground of objection to ayers theory but rather a point in favor for it.

ayer - definition of nature of all moral enquiries.

ethical philosophy consists simply in saying that ethical concepts are pseudo concepts and unanalyzable. psychologist can analyse feelings that they provoke. ethical science does not exist (no ‘true’ system of morals). Essential defect of hedonistic or eudaemonistic theories of morals spring from inexorable commands (ignore the fact which lies at root of other), but most importantly, they treat propositions which reger to the causes and attributes of our ethical feelings as if they were definitions of ethical concepts and thus fail to recognise that ethical concepts are indefinable bc they are pseudo concepts.

Hart - Four features distinguishing moral rules

1.     Importance maintained against strong passions they restrict, there s strong social pressure for conformity and for their teaching, consequences of violation are believed to be serious. (not perse true for legal ones).

2.     Immunity from deliberate change it is senseless to say ‘on jan 1 last year it became immoral to do so-and-so’; moral rules can’t be changed or repealed by deliberate enactment.

3.     Voluntary character of moral offences lack of intention and use of due precaution exclude from moral responsibility and blame; in morals (not always in law), ‘ought implies can’. Ought to according to Kant says therefor implies freedom.

4.     For of moral pressure moral arguments can’t involve threats of physical punishment, but only consist in reviewing the reasons for accepting the moral rules, making appeal to conscience.

Gewirth - what is PGC? Compare to Kant categorical imperative

### Comparison of the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) with Kant's Moral Philosophy

1. Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC):

- Formulated by: Alan Gewirth

- Core Principle: Agents must act in accordance with the generic rights of themselves and others, which are the necessary conditions of action: freedom and well-being.

- Focus: Ensuring the necessary conditions for action (freedom and well-being) are upheld for all individuals.

- Rational Basis: It is grounded in the logical necessity that all agents require these conditions to act, hence they must respect these conditions for others.

- Ethical Obligations: Agents are morally obligated to respect and promote these generic rights universally.

2. Kant's Moral Philosophy:

- Formulated by: Immanuel Kant

- Core Principle: The Categorical Imperative, which has several formulations, most notably:

- Universalizability: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

- Humanity Formula: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, and never merely as a means to an end."

- Focus: Rational consistency and the intrinsic value of rational agents.

- Rational Basis: Moral actions are derived from reason and must be universally applicable without contradiction.

- Ethical Obligations: Agents must act according to maxims that can be universally applied and must respect the inherent dignity of all rational beings.

### Key Comparisons:

Similarities:

- Rational Foundation: Both PGC and Kant's ethics are grounded in rationality. The PGC is based on the rational necessity of freedom and well-being for action, while Kant's ethics are based on the rational requirement of universalizability and respect for rational agents.

- Universal Application: Both principles require universal applicability. PGC demands respect for generic rights for all agents, and Kant's Categorical Imperative requires actions to be universally applicable.

- Respect for Others: Both frameworks emphasize respect for others. PGC focuses on the conditions necessary for action (freedom and well-being), while Kant emphasizes treating others as ends in themselves.

Differences:

- Basis of Rights: PGC specifically identifies freedom and well-being as the necessary conditions for action, whereas Kant's philosophy does not specify particular conditions but focuses on the form of moral laws and respect for rational agency.

- Approach to Morality: PGC is more focused on the outcomes necessary for action (i.e., ensuring freedom and well-being), whereas Kant's ethics are concerned with the form of actions and adherence to duty irrespective of consequences.

- Derivation of Moral Obligations: In PGC, moral obligations arise from the need to respect and fulfill the conditions necessary for action. In Kantian ethics, obligations arise from the need to act according to maxims that can be universalized and respect the inherent worth of rational agents.

### Summary of the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC)

The Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC), formulated by Alan Gewirth, is a supreme principle of morality that requires every agent to act in accordance with the generic rights of both themselves and others. These generic rights are defined as the necessary conditions for any action: freedom and well-being. Freedom entails the ability to act without external constraints, while well-being includes the various abilities and conditions required for successful action.

The PGC is grounded in the rational necessity that all agents must recognize and respect these conditions for themselves and, therefore, must logically extend this recognition and respect to others. By doing so, the PGC ensures that all individuals can pursue their goals and act effectively. This principle provides a universal foundation for ethical behavior, demanding that agents consider the impact of their actions on the generic rights of others and themselves. Through its emphasis on the conditions necessary for action, the PGC guides moral decision-making and ensures a consistent, rational approach to ethics.

gewirth - absolutism (abstract vs concrete)

### Gewirth's Concrete vs. Abstract Absolutism

Alan Gewirth distinguishes between two forms of moral absolutism in his philosophical work: abstract absolutism and concrete absolutism. These concepts are part of his broader ethical framework, which includes the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC). Here's an overview of both forms of absolutism as Gewirth defines them:

#### Abstract Absolutism

- Definition: Abstract absolutism asserts that certain moral principles or rules are universally and unconditionally binding in all situations, without exception.

- Characteristics:

- Rigidity: Moral principles are applied without regard to specific circumstances or contexts.

- Universality: The same principles are deemed applicable to all agents in all situations.

- Deontological Approach: Emphasizes adherence to rules or duties regardless of outcomes or situational variables.

- Example: The rule "Do not lie" is followed strictly, even if lying in a particular situation could prevent harm or produce a better outcome.

#### Concrete Absolutism

- Definition: Concrete absolutism, on the other hand, takes into account the context and specific details of situations while maintaining the absolute nature of moral principles.

- Characteristics:

- Contextual Sensitivity: While upholding moral principles as absolute, it considers the particularities of each situation to determine how the principles apply.

- Practical Application: Recognizes that the implementation of moral rules may vary depending on the circumstances, but the underlying principles remain unwavering.

- Balance: Strives to balance the rigid application of moral principles with the practical realities of human life.

- Example: The rule "Do not lie" is upheld as a fundamental principle, but in a situation where lying would save a life, the context is considered, and the principle is applied in a way that acknowledges the specific circumstances.

### Comparison and Implications

1. Flexibility:

- Abstract Absolutism: Inflexible, applying moral rules uniformly without consideration of situational nuances.

- Concrete Absolutism: Flexible in application, though the underlying moral principles remain absolute.

2. Practicality:

- Abstract Absolutism: Can lead to impractical or morally counterintuitive outcomes because it does not consider the context.

- Concrete Absolutism: More practical and adaptable, allowing for moral principles to be upheld in a way that makes sense within specific contexts.

3. Ethical Reasoning:

- Abstract Absolutism: Simplifies ethical reasoning by providing clear, unambiguous rules.

- Concrete Absolutism: Requires more nuanced ethical reasoning to apply principles appropriately to different situations.

### Gewirth's Perspective

Gewirth advocates for concrete absolutism as part of his ethical theory. He argues that while moral principles must be absolute and universal, their application must be sensitive to the context to ensure that they serve their purpose of promoting and respecting the generic rights of individuals. This approach aligns with his Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC), which requires that actions respect the necessary conditions of freedom and well-being for all agents. By adopting concrete absolutism, Gewirth aims to balance the need for moral consistency with the practical demands of real-world situations.

strawson - compatibalism

In “Freedom and Resentment” (1962), the British philosopher P.F. Strawson (1919–2006) introduced an influential version of compatibilism grounded in human psychology. Strawson observed that people display emotions such as resentment, anger, gratitude, and so on in response to the actions of others. He argued that holding agents morally responsible for their actions is nothing more than having such feelings, or “reactive attitudes,” toward them. The question of whether the agents act freely matters only insofar as it affects the feelings toward them that others may have; apart from this, freedom is beside the point. Moreover, because people cannot help but feel reactive attitudes, no matter how much they may try not to, they are justified in having them, whatever the truth or falsity of determinism. (This is not to say that the specific reactive attitude a person may have on a given occasion—of blind rage as opposed to mere annoyance, for example—is always justified.)

Yet it is far from clear that people are always justified in having reactive attitudes. Pertinent information can drastically change one’s feelings toward an agent. For example, one might become less angry with a driver who ran over a cat if one discovers that the driver was rushing to the hospital with a desperately ill child. One may even lose the anger altogether. Given the enormous influence that everyday factual information has over what reactive attitudes people have and whether they even have them, it seems unwise to treat them as accurate barometers of moral responsibility.

strawson - schematized

P.F. Strawson's seminal essay "Freedom and Resentment" addresses the issue of free will and moral responsibility by examining our everyday practices of holding people morally responsible for their actions. Here is a schematic representation of Strawson's argument:

### 1. Introduction to the Problem

- Topic: The debate over free will and moral responsibility.

- Key Question: Can we justify our practices of holding people morally responsible if determinism is true?

### 2. Reactive vs. Objective Attitudes

- Reactive Attitudes: These are the natural human responses to the actions and intentions of others, such as resentment, gratitude, forgiveness, and love.

- Objective Attitude: Treating others as objects of social policy, or as subjects to be managed, handled, or controlled, rather than as persons to be engaged with interpersonally.

### 3. Importance of Reactive Attitudes

- Argument: Reactive attitudes are essential to interpersonal relationships and to what it means to be a person in a community.

- Examples of Reactive Attitudes: Resentment towards someone who has wronged us, gratitude towards someone who has helped us.

### 4. Determinism and Reactive Attitudes

- Hypothetical Objection: If determinism is true, can we still justify reactive attitudes?

- Strawson's Response: The truth of determinism does not eliminate our reactive attitudes because these attitudes are an integral part of human life and social interaction.

### 5. Excusing and Exempting Conditions

- Excusing Conditions: Situations where we suspend our reactive attitudes temporarily (e.g., someone did not mean to cause harm).

- Exempting Conditions: Situations where we suspend our reactive attitudes permanently (e.g., someone has a severe mental illness or is a child).

### 6. Strawson's Main Thesis

- Central Claim: Our practices of holding people morally responsible are not dependent on the truth or falsity of determinism.

- Key Point: These practices are rooted in our natural human tendencies and interpersonal relationships, not in theoretical justifications.

### 7. Practical Consequences

- Implication: Even if determinism were true, it would not change the fact that we continue to hold people responsible based on our natural human responses and social practices.

### 8. Philosophical Implications

- Challenge to Traditional Debates: Strawson's argument suggests that the debate over free will and determinism might be misguided if it ignores the essential role of human emotional responses and social practices.

- Reframing the Debate: The focus should be on understanding how these practices function and why they are significant, rather than solely on metaphysical questions.

### Schematic Summary

1. Introduction:

- Topic: Free will and moral responsibility.

- Key Question: Justification of moral responsibility practices under determinism.

2. Reactive vs. Objective Attitudes:

- Reactive Attitudes: Natural human responses (e.g., resentment, gratitude).

- Objective Attitude: Treating others as objects or subjects of social policy.

3. Importance of Reactive Attitudes:

- Argument: Essential to interpersonal relationships and community.

- Examples: Resentment, gratitude.

4. Determinism and Reactive Attitudes:

- Objection: Can we justify reactive attitudes if determinism is true?

- Response: Reactive attitudes are integral to human life, regardless of determinism.

5. Excusing and Exempting Conditions:

- Excusing: Temporary suspension of reactive attitudes.

- Exempting: Permanent suspension due to conditions like mental illness or childhood.

6. Main Thesis:

- Central Claim: Moral responsibility practices are independent of determinism.

- Key Point: Rooted in natural human tendencies and social interactions.

7. Practical Consequences:

- Implication: Determinism does not alter our practice of holding people responsible.

8. Philosophical Implications:

- Challenge: Reassessing the debate over free will and determinism.

- Reframing: Focus on the significance and function of human emotional responses and social practices.

Strawson's argument fundamentally shifts the discussion from abstract metaphysical considerations to the practical realities of human relationships and moral practices.

HART - 3 issues with justice vs morality

1. the distinction within the general sphere of morality of the specific idea of justice and the special features which account for its peculiarly intimate connection with law.
2. the characteristics which distinguish moral rules and principles not only from legal rules but from all other forms of social rule or standards of conduct. These two issues are the subject of this chapter; the third, which is the subject of the next, 3. the many different senses and ways in which legal rules and morals may be said to be related.

 

hart - 3 ways in which moral rules / laws differ from eachother?

importance (moral rule more important then normal conduct like homosexuality).
immunity to deliberate change. you can not say that from 1 july 2018 it is immoral to help others.
voluntary character of moral obligation - if you tried to do right, but acidentally or outside of your own will or competence act immorally, it is usually forgiven.
form of moral pressure appeal to conscious f.e.; you don’t want to feel guilty so you can say ‘ that would be cheating’ and it could be enough to make someoe moral comply with their morality.