ii. the argument contains a self-contradiction. 4a declares morality cannot be proven, yet 4a is being used to prove something about morality- that it’s all just opinion

a. but if 4a is true, then 4c cannot be proven

iii. premise 4b is false; not everything that cannot be (now) proven is just a matter of opinion

a. ex. Some presently unproven things could be proven in the future

b. ex. Some things are self-evident truths that need no proof can now be proven

i. so perhaps some moral statement will someday be proven, or perhaps some are self-evident truths that need not to be proven

iv. there are no proofs in morality

a. a) students 1 and 2 both fairly earn an equal score on the midterm

b. b) student 1 based on her score would receive an A

c. c) equals should be treated equally

d. d) student 2 should receive an A

Ethics

Objections to Moral Relativism itself in general as a theory:

1. Logical Objection

a. Moral Relativism states: MR= morality is just a matter of opinion

i. On the logic of the theory itself, on its own statement above, moral relativism can only be an opinion- it cannot be an objectively true statement about the status of morality

ii. So, moral relativism logically defeats itself/contradicts itself

iii. For if moral relativism is true, it cannot be true, and that is a contradiction

2. Atrocity Objection

a. If MR is true, then moral atrocities are not truly wrong

i. Nothing is truly wrong, no matter how horrible

ii. Ex. Holocaust of the Jews- what the Nazis did is a prime example of evil

1. MR says it’s not truly wrong, as it is a matter of opinion

2. You can’t say what other people do is wrong

iii. Other examples: slavery, racism, pedophilia, baby rape (Francisco Bethen rapes 3-month-old son)

iv. MR has radical implications

3. Progress Objection

a. MR denies there is every moral progress (change for the moral better)

b. But seems obvious that moral progress can occur

i. Ex. 1825 USA: killing Indians, slavery, no equality for women, child labor

1. Present day: no killing Indians, no slavery, legal equality for women, no child labor

c. A moral relativist would say that there is no moral change, only taste/style

Divine Command Theory

· Moral Realism: the view that there are objectively true moral principles

o “Moral objectivism”

· Types of moral realism:

o Divine command theory

o Utilitarianism

o Kantianism

o Virtue theory

o Duty theory

· Divine command theory: the view that moral principles are determined by God

o Morality= God’s commands

o Humans do not create true morality, God does

o Humans can be mistaken about morality

§ If God did not exist or issue commands, then true objective morality could not exist

· Morality depends on God

o At least 3 billion people accept some version of this theory

§ Muslims, Christians, jews, Sikhs

Arguments for Divine Command Theory

1. Foundation Argument

a. Divine command theory provides a foundation for ethics

b. Whatever theory gives a foundation for ethics is the true moral theory

c. The divine command theory is the true moral theory

Objections to 1 Foundation Argument

i. Other theories can provide a foundation for ethics

o Ex. Cultural relativism, utilitarianism, virtue theory- human nature

o If so, then b will make all these theories true at the same time, which is a contradiction of each other; so, b is false

ii. We don’t seem able to prove that DCT can provide a foundation for ethics

o We can’t prove God exists

o We can’t prove God gives commands (deism)

o We can’t prove which religion has God’s commands

2. Objective Argument

a. Only God can create objective moral principles (humans can’t)

b. Objective moral principles exist

c. God creates objective moral principles

Objections to 2 Objective Argument

i. Objective principles can exist without being created by God:

o Ex. Principles of logic

§ Law of identity- everything is identical to itself (A=A)

o Ex. Principles of math (1 + 1 = 2)

o Ex. Principles of metaphysics (the whole is greater than the part)

o Ex. Principles of reason: if A contradicts B, do not believe both A and B

o Ex. Principles of morality: treat equally, equally

ii. So, if there can be objective principles in other areas without God, why not in morality?

iii. And there seems to be at least one objective moral principle in morality

3. Motivation Argument

a. Only Divine Command Theory provides people a motive to always be moral

i. Divine punishment/reward

b. Whatever moral theory that provides people a motive to always be moral is the true theory

c. The DCT is the true moral theory

Objections to 3 Motivation Argument

i. This argument doesn’t give us moral action/motivation (do what is good because it is good). It can only give us egoistic motivation, bare self-interest

a. Ex. 2 grandchildren visit their sick grandma; Sally goes out of love and family loyalty; Jezebel goes out of self-interest (will) ONLY Sally has moral motivation

ii. Other moral theories can motivate us to always do what is moral

a. Ex. Santa clause, karmic reincarnation

b. Ex. Virtue ethics: happiness is composed of a life according to virtue

c. Ex. Kantianism: we have a duty to do what is right because it is right

Objections to Divine Command Theory itself:

1. We don’t seem to be able to prove that God issues commands, so if the foundation is unproven, so is DCT

a. According to DCT, to know what is right/wrong, we must know what God commands.

i. But to know that we’d have to prove which of the thousands of religions is the one true faith, with God’s true commands

ii. But that seems impossible to do. If so, it is impossible to know what is right/wrong on the DCT

2. Religions disagree about what God commands

a. Ex. Christianity = monogamy, Islam = polygamy, Catholics = no unnatural sex, Orthodox Jews = no period sex, Shakers = no sex allowed, Buddhists = tantric sex meditation, Hinduism = temple prostitution, Raelians = orgies and public nudity

3. The Euthyphro Dilemma

a. Is something good because God commands it?

b. Does God command it because it is good?

· Which is logically prior?

o The goodness of the thing? Or God’s commanding of it?

· The correct answer seems to be b.

o There are qualities in actions themselves that make them right/wrong

o They are not just right/wrong because commanded a forbidden by God

§ Ex. Miking your baby, since the voice in your head says its God

Utilitarianism

· Utilitarianism: the view that consequences determine the truth of moral statement

o A consequentialist theory: the consequences that determine morality

· Principle of Utility: “always seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number”

o “morality = maximizing overall happiness”

· That action which of all the alternatives, results in the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for all those affected by the action

Two Major Versions

i. Act Utilitarianism: each individual action is assessed if it maximized happiness

ii. Rule Utilitarianism: a rule of conduct is assessed if it maximizes happiness if everyone follows it

a. Ex. Stop signs

i. Act may say that if no one is around, blow it

ii. Rule says no matter what you must stop

In Favor of Utility

1. Equality: it treats people equally. Everyone’s happiness counts, and equally so

2. Democratic: if you can’t make everyone happy, make the majority happy

3. Scientific: utility makes morality scientific, mathematical, quantifiable, precise, definite

a. You can quantitatively determine whether something will maximize happiness

4. Applications: of utility often give the right, intuitive, moral answer

a. Ex. Trolley case #1

b. Ex. Trolley case #2: Mom

c. Ex. Trolley Case #3: The Fat Guy

Objections to Utilitarianism

· Utility will allow us to violate individual and minority rights as long as we maximize happiness for the majority

o Ex. Fat man trolley case: push fat man off the bridge to save the 5 with his body

o Ex. Hospital organ case: kill one guy to save 5 with his organs

o Ex. Slavery: 90% free and happy, 10% enslaved unhappy

o Ex. Peeping Tom: a couple having sex is surreptitiously videos; video is uploaded to China, goes viral, billion happy views

· Utility must say all these examples are morally good, and out to be done. But these cases violate rights and are therefore wrong.

Kantian Ethics

· Kantianism: the view that the truth of moral principles is determined by reason

o “morality = rationality”

o Morality is just a way of being rational- it is a part of rationality

Two Major Requirements of Rationality

1. Consistency: rationality demands consistency

a. Since inconsistency is contradictory, and contradictions cannot be true

2. Value of Reason: being rational implies valuing reason, reasons, reasoning, reasoners, rational beings, beings capable of reason

· Kant has a moral principle for each of these 2 requirements

Universal Rule

· “Act only on that maxim that you will to be a universal law”

o Maxim = principle

· Act only on those principles you will universally accept all people acting upon, even in regard to yourself

o You must be consistent

o You cannot allow yourself actions or principles that you do not allow to others

§ You must be consistent across all people

· Similar to the Golden Rule: “do unto others as you would have do unto you”

o Otherwise, you are inconsistent, irrational, immoral

o Ex. Lying: you do not accept others lying to you, so you cannot consistently accept yourself lysing to others

o Ex. Rescue: if you demand others to rescue you when they can, then consistency demands you rescue others when you can

Objections to Universal Rule

· All versions of the Golden Rule (all consistency rules) are unable to filter out consistent wrongdoers: people who accept others doing the wrong things they do

o Ex. Public nudists, masturbates, fornicators – any of these who are fine with others doing in public what they do, can pass the universal rule, they are consistent

Humanity Rule

· “Always treat humanity as an end, and never merely as a means”

· 2 types of value:

o Instrumental value: something is valuable as a means to do something else

§ Ex. Lottery ticket: only valuable as a means to the jackpot, discarded if it loses

o Intrinsic value: something is value in itself

§ Ex. The goals, the ends of our conduct

· Happiness, pleasure, love, friendship, beauty, knowledge, virtue

· Humans have intrinsic value, never treat them as instrumental value

o All morally bad actions treats humans as only having instrumental value, as being objects, means to be used

§ Ex. Mugging, rape

o All morally good actions treat humans as intrinsically value – as having value in themselves

§ Ex. Rescue, humanitarian aid

Objections to Humanity Rule

· Morality sometimes permits us, or obligates us not to treat others as having intrinsic values

o Ex. Self-defense injuries or killing

o Ex. Punishment – death penalty, imprisonment

Virtue Ethics

· Virtue ethics: the truth of moral statements is determined in reference to the virtues

o Morality = action according to virtues

o Virtue = a character trait conductive to human flourishing

Cardinal Virtues

1. Prudence: care in handling practical patterns; Good judgement

2. Temperance/Moderation: self-control/self-restraint

3. Courage: the ability to face difficulty, danger, pain

4. Justice: fairness; giving to others their due or desert

· There are corresponding vices = character traits conductive to human detriment

o Imprudence, immoderation/intemperance, cowardice, injustice

· Life in accordance with the virtues conduces to human flourishing

· We develop the virtues by practice (habits)

Objections to Virtue Ethics

i. Sometimes the vices conduce to human flourishing

a. Ex. Injustice: the USA conquering the Indians – the USA flourishes in part due to the territory it took

b. Ex. Cowardice: in the face of a superior foe, can result in self-prosecution

ii. What does one do when virtues conflict:

a. Prudence in the face of a superior enemy – can result in handling well practical matter – self-prosecution vs. courage in facing a superior enemy

iii. This theory seems to be egoistic or self-centered – it seems to be focused on one’s own flourishing. Whereas ordinarily we think ethics should be in part other directed

Duty Ethics

· Duty ethics: the view that the truth of moral statements is determined in reference to our duties

o Morality = actions in accordance with our strongest duty

· We have prima facie duties

o Provisioned duties that should be considered in our actions

§ The right action is that in accordance with our strongest prima facie duty

Prima Facie Duties

1. Duties that arise from actions done by others – ex. Gratitude

2. Duties based on your own previous actions

a. Ex. Fidelity: keeping your promises – contracts

b. Ex. Restitution: reparation to those you have wronged

3. Non-maleficence: a duty not to harm others