Ethics semester 2 - Ch 12 to Ch

Objective morality, Ethical Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Objections ag Moral Realism, moral knowledge, moral testimony, animal ethics, climate ethics

Subjective relativism

An act isn’t absolutely right or wrong. It’s right or wrong relative to some subject who approves of it

Cultural relativism

An isn’t absolutely right or wrong. It’s right or wrong relative some culture who approves it

Relativism vs. objectivism and nihilism

Ethical truths do exist but they’re relative and morality is not just an illusion. In the case of cultural relativism, ethics are true even if though they’re constructed by society

Cultural nihilism

Ethics is just a myth enforced by society like Santa Claus

Objection to relativism: cases of mild disagreement

People who might be relativists about some things aren’t about everything. They can’t be relativists about pedophilia or torture for example, therefore they’re not relativists at all

What does relativism really mean?

Moral fallibility. No one can be held accountable for anything good or evil that they do. Moral equivalence. Committing genocide is the same as not lying or being kind.

Second objection to moral relativism

Relativism yields contradiction because then everyone is right, from their own point of view, which isn’t possible.

How to fix relativist’s contradiction problem

Make ethical claims about people’s preferences not the morality of an act in and of itself.

How is a relativist actually just a nihilist?

If relativist believes morality is actually just a matter of people’s personal preferences then they’re denying that morality exists.

Why are people relativists?

Because they think objective morality threatens freedom because an external authority is telling them what they should and should not do.

Existentialism

Idea that each individual creates their own values. Also known as subjective relativism.

Consequences of subjective relativism/existentialism

If everyone makes up their own values then no one can blame each other for their ethics. You can’t blame a society for its ethics either.

Paradox of cultural relativism

Everyone is supposed to follow their society’s ethics, but cultural relativists are generally people who’ve rejected their own society’s ethics for their own individual ones. Makes no sense

What are the 2 options for consistent relativists?

Endorse cultural relativism without freedom to criticize society’s ethics or maintain your individual ethics which means you support freedom of individual from society’s constraints as an objective value.

Conclusion on subjective relativism over cultural relativism

Cultural relativists actually don’t want to be under moral authority of their own society. So they’re really just subjective relativists defending the objective value of their ability to have their own ethical values. Which means they’re really just objectivists

How are existentialists really just objectivists?

They believe the right to make up their own individual ethical values is, in itself, an objective value. Belief that individual choice to make up ethics is an absolute value is objective. So it’s all a matter of which objective values exist

Moral nihilism

The belief that neither morality nor moral truths exist

What are the 2 attitudes you can respond with to radical philosophy views?

Accept the tragic consequences of the view (ex: if free will doesn’t exist we can’t do anything and we should empty prisons) or cheer up and make the best of it (ex: even if we’re not free, should continue as if we were)

What is the first way to respond to moral nihilism?

Accept the consequences or Error theory

What is the second way to respond to moral nihilism?

Cheer up and try to make the best of it. Expressivism

Error Theory

Moral discourse and practices aren’t real, they’re irrational and fake. Moral claims are false, they’re all errors

Expressivism

Morality may not exist but moral discourse and practices can continue without change because they describe still expressions of our emotions

Compare error theory and expressivism to painting?

Moral claims are pure fiction or myth (like a surrealist painting) or moral claims are just expressions of emotion (like an abstract painting)

What is the main argument for nihilism?

We don’t know where in reality moral facts exist.

Moral nihilism as a response to Hume’s law

Hume’s law says there’s a gap between facts that describe the world and facts about how the world should be. Moral nihilism says because ethical facts aren’t natural, they can’t exist at all

Argument from Queerness by Mackie

We shouldn’t posit strange things in our world theories unless we have to

Expressivism vs. subjectivism

Expressivism says moral claims just express emotions. Subjectivism says moral claims are true but only relative to ourselves

Objections to expressivism

If moral claims are just expressions of emotion then you can’t have a rational argument or discussion about morality. When we say “torture is wrong” we’re not just expressing how much torture sucks

Conclusion on expressivism

If there are no moral facts then our common sense claims about ethics are false. But our common sense claims aren’t just expressions of emotions. Therefore, moral claims are just errors. Expressivism is the same as Error Theory

(Shitty) Objection to Error Theory

If people believe error theory they’ll commit atrocities and society will collapse so error theory is false. Solution is to just not to tell everyone. And if error theory is true then nothing is good or bad, including the fact that it’s true

Reversing the argument on Error theory

A world with lots of pain for all is obviously worse than one with joy for all. So moral facts must exist somehow. If moral facts exist then they’re of a totally different nature than descriptive facts. Therefore moral facts must be part of reality even if they’re really weird

Why does reversing the argument work against Error theory?

Because the premise it starts with is less plausible and its conclusion is very surprising. For example: moral facts can’t exist in reality which isn’t very plausible but ending with torture isn’t wrong is a very strange conclusion

What is meant by the burden of proof?

Since everyone starts de facto as moral realists, those who reject moral realism have the burden to prove why

The “it depends” argument (based on subjective relativism)

There’s no universal, objective moral truth because it always depends on circumstances and/or my own decision to create my own values (subjective relativism).

Objection to “it depends” argument (subjective relativism)

Even if what you should do depends on circumstances that’s still compatible with moral realism. And what you should doesn’t necessarily depend on your decision to create your own ethics

The “it depends” argument (based on cultural relativism)

What you should do depends on circumstances and the society in which you’re living (cultural relativism)

Objection to “it depends” argument (cultural relativism)

Even if you have moral duty to respect others by adapting to their customs, it doesn’t mean those customs are morally right in themselves. Duty depends on circumstances (in this case, the customs of society you’re in) which is compatible with moral realism

Conclusion on “it depends” argument

Relies on confusion since our moral duties depend on circumstances but fundamental moral duties do not depend on the agent’s decision (or decision of society in which they live) to create ethics

Objection on relativism about truth in general

Moral truths cannot be absolute since all truths are relative, including scientific ones

Shafer-Landau’s response to objection to relativism in general

General relativism is contradictory.

Problem about general relativism being contradictory/self-refuting

Means that relativism is also only true, relatively. Absolutism would be true relatively too

Confusion over relativism about truth in general:

For example: Geocentrism was true in the middle ages like how heliocentrism is true now. Doesn’t mean geocentrism was literally true, only that people back then believed it was the truth then

Conclusion on relativism about truth in general

Relativism about truth in general may not be contradictory but usually comes from confusion between true according to belief vs. really true, relative to something

“Right to believe” objection against moral realism

You have the right to believe what you want, but if something’s objectively true then you must believe it. You’re forced to believe it which is wrong and against your freedom

Response to “right to believe” objection

Something may be true in the sense that it’s what you should believe because it’s rational but that doesn’t mean you’re forced to believe it just because it’s true. Only that it’d be dumb not to believe it and you have a natural inclination to believe it because of freedom for excellence

“Impossibility to settle ethical debates” objection to moral realism

Debates are never settled in ethics which means there’s no such thing as a common truth. Therefore, there’s no moral realism

Response to “impossibility to settle ethical debates” objection

Although it’s true that ethical debates are hard to settle, there’s still objective truth in arguments. And in science and other fields, there are debates that have not been settled but doesn’t make them less objectively true

What is the difference between hard and meaningless debates?

In hard debates, people may never convince each other, though sometimes they do. In meaningless ones, it’s impossible to be justified in believing one thing or another in the debate

Atheism objection to moral realism

Objective morality can exist only if there’s a God who’s the source of this morality. (No God, no morality). God doesn’t exist, so there’s no objective morality

Response to atheism objection to moral realism

Uses divine command theory which has been rejected. Objective morality can exist without God.

Defeater objection to moral realism

We think objective morality exists due to intuition that there are objective moral truths. But without any reason to trust this intuition, since it comes from natural, blind evolution, then we have no reason to think there’s an objective morality.

Response to defeater objection to moral realism

It’s argument against the reason to believe objective morality exists NOT against moral realism itself. We can have other reasons to think objective morality exists. But why shouldn’t moral sense be a good reason to believe moral facts exist?

Scientism objection to moral realism

A claim is only true if it can be justified by science, since science cannot verify ethical claims, all ethical claims are false.

Response to scientism objection to moral realism

Scientism is self-refuting because you can’t verify scientism is true using science.

Queerness objection to moral realism

Moral facts don’t fit into the natural world therefore we shouldn’t posit their existence in reality so it’s not wrong to torture (for example).

Response to queerness objection to moral realism

Torture is probably wrong, so moral facts exist, therefore there must be a place for moral facts in reality

How do we fit moral facts into reality?

Even though moral facts are strange and we’re not sure how they fit into reality, we have a strong intuition that torture must be wrong and if torture’s wrong then there must be moral facts so there must be a place in reality for moral facts.

What is the strongest argument against moral realism?

Moral facts are weird and don’t fit into natural world, we have intuition that they should exist but because it comes from blind evolution doesn’t mean that the intuition is true. Therefore, there’s no reason to think moral facts exist and strong reason to think they do not exist.

What are 2 possible responses to the queerness of moral facts argument against moral realism?

Naturalism, moral facts are natural, non-naturalism, moral facts exist at a different level of reality

What is the open question argument against naturalism?

If naturalism were right, you could define good in terms of some natural property which would make it true by definition. But it’s an open question for all natural properties whether they’re good. Therefore, naturalism is false

What does true by definition mean?

Whoever understands the meaning of the words immediately sees the sentence is true. For example: all bachelors are unmarried. It must be basic, fundamental and undefinable

What is an open question?

Joe Biden is president is true, but not by definition. It’s an open question

Intuitionism response to the argument from queerness

Moral facts are part of a different reality separate from nature which we can know and observe via our moral intuition.

Problems with intuitionism

It’s not very convincing. It bites the bullet by accepting that moral facts exist in a strange realm.

Utilitarianism response to argument from queerness

Utilitarianism can define a good action (moral facts) according to promotion of greatest good for the most number of people. Being good is the naturalistic property of causing greatest amount of pleasure for most number of people.

Problem with the utilitarian response to argument from queerness

It’s still an open question because the idea that ‘good’ is causing the greatest amount of good for greatest number of people isn’t true by definition.

Natural law response to the argument from queerness

Reduce the notion of ‘good’ to the notion of ‘flourishing’ according to one’s nature.

Application of natural law argument for existence of moral facts

Eudaimonism: good, for humans, is promoting happiness because it satisfies our natural desires which leads to natural flourishing.

Natural law vs. the open question problem

Is it true that promoting the flourishing of a being is good by definition? When flourishing means continuing to exist, is it good for a being to exist by definition? Anyone who doesn’t think existing is good in itself has a different idea of what existence is then

Where do moral facts exist in nature? (naturalism)

Goodness is promoting greatest good for greatest number. Goodness is promoting natural flourishing

Where do moral facts exist in reality separate from natural world? (non-naturalism)

Goodness is the law of God himself. Goodness is undefinable

What are 3 views in meta-ethics

Nihilism, relativism (subjectivism), moral realism (objectivism)

In moral realism, where do objective moral truths come from?

God (Divine Command Theory), some aspect in nature and physical reality (naturalism), some immaterial realm of morality (non-naturalist moral realism)

If there’s an objective moral code, are you truly free?

Existentialism, freedom of indifference, freedom of excellence

Freedom of indifference

There is objectively right and wrong, but you’re free to choose either right or wrong. Having the freedom to choose evil, when objective good exists, means free will does exist

Freedom of excellence

To be free is to be able to do good, objective moral truths indicate way of freedom because doing good means being fully free

Why does freedom for excellence work?

Because even though it’s not about freedom of choice between 2 things, it’s freedom from inclinations and temptations that impede your natural deep will to live a good life. Having so-called “choice” is just distractions from doing what you really want deep down

What is the divorce between moral goodness and happiness?

Aquinas thought our natural inclination was toward good. Ockham proposed that natural inclinations can go anywhere, not necessarily towards good.

Problem with freedom for excellence, according to Ockham

If I’m determined by my natural inclinations and unable to act differently, and my inclinations are determined by God, then I’m not really free.

Solution to Ockham’s issues with freedom for excellence

God isn’t an external force forcing you to do things, he’s deeper within you than your inner self. You can conjoin the ideas of both freedoms

What is moral knowledge?

What we know is good. Objective moral facts that we know by moral testimony or moral consciousness which comes from our moral intuitions.

Moral testimony

Moral knowledge given to us by a reliable moral authority. However, it cannot be the singular source of our moral knowledge because it must begin from somewhere and we must be capable of making moral decisions ourselves

Moral consciousness

Our ability to know moral truths by ourselves by having moral intuitions which guide us in specific cases and also for general moral principles.

Challenges to ability to trust moral intuitions

The framing effect which states our moral intuitions change depending on how a situation is framed. Some of our moral intuitions are produced by an automatic, unreliable mechanism

How does moral consciousness work?

Begin with principles then deduce particular cases. Begin with intuitions then find the principles that fit best. Reflective equilibrium

Method of reflective equilibrium for using our moral consciousness to know what is right in a situation

Begin with intuitions of general moral principles and intuitions of specific cases and find an equilibrium between the two if they have some tension or incoherence

Epistemic individualism (Descartes)

Idea that you shouldn’t rely on any testimony. You must verify everything yourself, don’t trust what you’re told

Epistemic individualism isn’t possible

There are some things you can only know by testimony: your birthdate, the existence of distance countries or scientific data

Objections to moral testimony

Reliance on moral authority means a lack of autonomy. Moral testimony can’t give you really moral beliefs or actions. There’s no way to identify a true moral expert

Problem of moral authority and lack of autonomy

Having any moral belief based on a moral authority, according to Kant and many Enlightenment philosophers, meant a lack of maturity and autonomy.

Solution to moral authority and autonomy issue

Depends on the situation because sometimes it’s not only appropriate to rely on moral authority, it’s the most responsible thing to do.

Problem of moral testimony and praiseworthiness

If you act based on moral testimony you’ve heard from a trusted source rather than believing it’s the right thing to do in itself, you’re not motivated morally. Moral testimony doesn’t change moral character, therefore it doesn’t lead to a morally good action

Response to problem of moral testimony and praiseworthiness

Even though the character isn’t necessarily motivated by the right moral motivation, they’re still morally motivated insofar as they want to do what’s good.

Problem of moral expertise

Moral experts don’t exist, you’re the only one who can say what’s right or wrong in a situation you’re in, so moral testimony can never help increase your moral knowledge.

Solution to problem of moral expertise

Moral experts don’t exist but it is possible to be better than others at using moral consciousness from experience. So you’re not the only person who can say what’s right or wrong in a situation. Moral advice is very helpful to increase moral knowledge

What is speciesism?

A prejudice in favor of the interests of the members of your own species and against the interests of other species. It’s egocentrism because you prefer your species and interests to others’

Animal Liberation

Free animals from slavery created by human beings, recognize the importance of animal suffering, change our ways of life (vegetarian)

Rationality and personhood argument for treating humans better than animals

We treat humans differently than animals because humans are objectively superior since they have the capacity for rationality and personhood. It’s not biased or ungrounded discrimination

Response to rationality and personhood argument for treating humans better than animals

It’s an argument that was used to justify sexism and racism. Justifies egocentrism. Equality is a moral idea not assertion of fact

Impossibility of equal treatment argument for treating humans better than animals

It’s impractical and irrational to try and treat animals like humans (ex: locking fish in jail for murder)