Critical Thinking about Morality and Introduction to Moral Theory

1
Critical Thinking about Morality and Introduction
to Moral Theory

• 2006 Makoto Suzuki

2
Aims of Day 2

• In this philosophy class, we will examine various
  moral positions to know whether they are correct.
• However, you might wonder how to do this.
• We will consider this question, taking into
  account what Regan and Timmons say.

3
Tom Regan on Ways Not to Answer Moral Qs 1.
Irrelevance of Personal Preferences

• Practice Concise Summary of the Premises
  (Reasons)
• Regan (on p.5) argues that moral right and wrong
  cannot be determined just by finding out about
  someones personal preferences because moral
  judgments are not just expressions of personal
  preference. What are the two reasons for this?
• While different persons expressions of personal
  preferences cannot deny each other, different
  persons moral judgments can deny each other.
  (See Jack-Jill exchange on liking of Grateful
  Dead justness of war)
• While it is not appropriate to press people for
  justifying their personal preferences, it is
  always appropriate to press people for justifying
  their moral judgments.

4
2. Irrelevance of What a Person Think

• Regan (on p.6) argues that a persons thinking
  something right or wrong does not make it so
  because his moral claims are not reports of what
  he thinks. Why?
• One persons report of what he thinks cannot
  contradict another persons report of what she
  thinks. For they describe different things. In
  contrast, one persons moral claim can contradict
  another persons moral claim.
• Regan illustrates this point with the
  Bonnie-Clyde exchange.

5
3. Irrelevance of Statistics

• On pp.6-7, Regan argues that what all or most
  people think does not settle moral issues. Why?
• It is odd to think that the rightness or
  wrongness of actions changes as peoples view
  changes.
• Regan asks you, for example, As peoples view on
  capital punishment changes, does it get right (or
  wrong)?
• In general, even what all people think cannot
  make it so everyone can be mistaken. (E.g.,
  everyone was mistaken about the shape of the
  earth.) Why do you think morality is any
  different?

6
Arguments from Consensus

• Regan thus points out that arguments from
  consensus is often fallacious.
• Arguments from consensus take the following
  general form
• When most people agree on a claim about a subject
  matter S, the claim is often true.
• p is a claim most people make about S.
• ??????????????
• p is true.

7
4. Problems about Appeal to Authority

• Appeal to authority is often indispensable to
  know truths. For example, we novices generally
  accept what physics or chemistry texts say,
  depending on the authority of the authors as
  scientists. Example of Appeal to Authority
• World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking says
  that the condition of the universe at the instant
  of the Big Bang was more highly ordered than it
  is today. In view of Hawkings stature in the
  scientific community, we should conclude that
  this description of the universe is correct.

8
Conditions on ProperAppeals to Authority

• The argument appeals to an expert or experts in
  the area of knowledge under consideration (it is
  not like appealing to Makoto on what clothes,
  cosmetics, hair styles etc. are fashionable)
• 2. There is agreement among the experts in the
  area of knowledge under consideration
• 3. There is no good reason to suspect that the
  expert appealed to is biased on the particular
  issue in question.
• Does appeal to moral authority satisfy these
  three conditions?

9
Appeal to the Authority of the Authors/Interpreter
s of Religious Texts

• In moral contexts, the appealed authority tends
  to be religious.
• If we can use religious authorities as moral
  authorities to settle moral disputes, that is
  convenient.
• However, as Regan points out (on p.7), there are
  several problems haunting this appeal to
  authority.
• Lets consider these problems in connection to
  homosexuality.
• This glance at homosexuality is an illustration,
  and it is not meant to settle whether homosexual
  acts are permissible.

10
Problems Haunting the Use of Religious Texts

• There are many religions and their sects.
  Therefore, if their texts give us different
  ethical teachings, we have to show which
  religious sect, if any, is true. And in many
  cases, these texts actually differ in their
  ethical teachings.
• Ex. The texts of Judeo-Christian-Islamic
  religions seem to condemn homosexuality, but many
  non-theistic religions, such as ancient Greek or
  Roman religions and many sects of Buddhism, do
  not seem to condemn homosexuality.

11
Problems Haunting the Use of Religious Texts

• 2. It is often difficult to determine which
  interpretation of the text in question is
  correct.
• Religious texts are often mysteriously vague.
• Even if we agree what the text says, we might
  disagree on what their ethical implications are.
• If there are more than one authoritative texts in
  a religious sect, sometimes they seem to
  contradict each other.
• As for homosexuality and the Bible the Old
  Testament seems to condemn it. (We will see this
  later.) In the New testament, though Jesus
  himself does not condemn homosexuality, Paul
  (alone) appears to do so. (1 Corinthians 69 1
  Timothy 110). But some interpreters in the 20th
  century question this orthodox interpretation.

12
Problems Haunting the Use of Religious Texts

• 3. Religious texts, esp. old ones, often give us
  more than we bargain for.
• Let me exemplify this point in relation to the
  Bible and homosexuality.
• Leviticus 1822 says You may not lie with a man
  as with a woman it is an abomination.

13
E.g. Leviticus

• However, Leviticus also gives lengthy
  instructions for diet, hygiene, treating leprosy,
  detailed requirements concerning burnt offerings,
  an elaborate routine for dealing with
  menstruating women.
• There are a number of rules about the daughters
  of priests, including the notation that if they
  play the whore, they shall be burned alive
  (219).
• Leviticus forbids eating fat (723), letting a
  woman into church until 42 days after giving
  birth (124-5), and seeing your uncle naked,
  which is also called an abomination (1814, 26).
• It says that a beard must have square corners
  (1927) and that we may purchase slaves from
  neighborhood states (2544).

14
Problems Haunting the Use of Religious Texts

• If someone condemns homosexuality based on the
  authority of the text, he has to either (1)
  accept these other teachings or (2) show the
  reasons why we do not have to obey them while we
  should obey the text on homosexuality.
• Such a dilemma is not limited to homosexuality or
  the Bible. It also occurs in relation to other
  issues and other religious texts.
• Caution (2) is unavailable if one takes the text
  to be
• the exact words given by the God or by the
  religious authority that he or she believes in
  and,
• applied in entirety by the God or the authority
  to our situation and,
• not retracted even in part by the God or the
  authority.

15
Continued

• Taking (2) means explaining why the particular
  passages one accepts the passage on
  homosexuality in this case are authoritative
  (in relation to our situation) while the passages
  he discards are not.
• For example, suppose he claims that the
  problematic passages on eating fat, slavery
  etc. in Leviticus do not correctly represent
  Gods dictate while the passage on homosexuality
  does. Then, he needs to provide the reason why he
  can say so.
• If the reason is a moral reason independent of
  religious texts, he ultimately bases his ethical
  view not on the authority of the texts but on the
  moral reason.

16
How Can We Know Correct Moral Views?

• On pp.8-11, Regan lists six positive proposals
  about how to approach moral issues.
• Make relevant concepts clear
• Take into account all relevant information
• Be logically consistent
• Give the same judgment when there is no relevant
  difference Formal Justice
• Be cool (Well, I would rather say, Cool head,
  warm heart.)
• Seek for valid moral principles
• The first three are conditions for study of any
  subject whatsoever the last three are probably
  specific to moral inquiry.

17
1. Make the question and the view clear!

• Suppose that unbeknownst to him, Mike is a
  sleepwalker, and while he is sleeping, he drives
  his car and parks the car in the area where one
  is legally prohibited from parking.
• Is Mike responsible?
• Well, the correct answer depends on what this
  question means. For example, depending on what
  responsible here means, the correct answer will
  be different.
• If responsible means having the legal duty (to
  pay the bill for the illegal parking), the
  correct answer is probably Yes, he is
  responsible.
• If responsible means morally blameworthy,
  probably the correct answer is No, he is not
  responsible.
• If responsible means trustworthy, we cannot
  tell yes or no from the example.

18
Continued

• Without knowing what questions or moral views
  mean, you cannot properly evaluate them.
• Therefore, before trying to examine a moral
  question or a moral view, you need to make it
  clear.
• In the above example, we should ask the
  questioner to define what he means by
  responsible.

19
Defining a Complex Concept Conceptual Analysis
(Regan, section 2, pp. 3-4)

• As for a complex concept, you can make it clear
  by analyzing the concept into the elements that
  constitute the concept, i.e., setting out the
  conditions for the application of the concept.
• For example, the complex concept of bachelor is
  probably analyzed as follows
• Something is a bachelor if and only if (1) it is
  a person, (2) it is male, (3) it is not married,
  and (4) it is an adult.
• According to this analysis, the concept of
  bachelor is constituted by four elements or
  conditions.
• For obvious reasons, philosophers call this
  activity conceptual analysis.

20
Conditions Necessary v. Sufficient,

• In the sentence One is a bachelor if and only if
  , if and only if means that is a necessary and
  sufficient condition for being a bachelor.
• X is a necessary condition for Y just in case X
  must occur in order for Y to occur.
• That is, you cannot have Y without X.
• In other words, Y only if X.
• Being male is a necessary condition for being a
  bachelor. One is a bachelor only if he is male.
• X is a sufficient condition for Y just in case Y
  must occur if X occurs.
• That is, you cannot have X without Y.
• In other words, Y if X (or, if X then Y).
• Being a bachelor is a sufficient condition for
  being male. One is male if he is a bachelor.

21
Necessary and Sufficient Condition

• X is a necessary and sufficient condition for Y
  just in case X is both a necessary condition and
  a sufficient condition for Y.
• That is, just in case both X must occur in order
  for Y to occur, and Y must occur in order for X
  to occur.
• In other words, X if and only if Y.
• Being a person, male, unmarried and an adult is
  jointly a necessary and sufficient condition for
  being a bachelor.
• Conceptual analysis strives to state a necessary
  and sufficient condition for a given concept.

22
Test yourself Necessary v. Sufficient Conditions

• The presence of water is a condition for it to
  rain.
• Being a plane closed figure is a condition for
  being a triangle.
• An object being red is a condition for the
  object being colored.
• An object being a BMW is a condition for the
  object being a car.

necessary
necessary
sufficient
sufficient
23
2. Take into all the relevant considerations (a)
Consider both reasons for and against the moral
view

• Suppose that Makoto considers whether death
  penalty is permissible.
• In order to determine whether it is permissible,
  Makoto needs to take into account all the
  relevant considerations.
• He needs to consider the reasons for this view,
  such as Death penalty deters crimes, Only
  death penalty gives some criminals what they
  deserve etc.
• He also needs to consider the reasons against
  this view, such as Death penalty violates the
  dignity of the punished or Death penalty
  sometimes kills an innocent person, and this harm
  cannot be compensated etc.

24
(b) Consider possible objections to arguments for
your positions.

• Not all arguments are good. Considering possible
  replies, we can evaluate whether they are good.
• Suppose Makoto gives a following argument
• Death penalty deters crimes more than any other
  punishment.
• Therefore, death penalty is permissible.
• What are the possible replies to this argument?
• You can either (1) argue that the premise is
  incorrect (e.g., Statistics show that life
  imprisonment deters crimes more than death
  penalty), or (2) argue that the conclusion does
  not follow from the premise (e.g., Even if death
  penalty deters, it does not satisfy other
  necessary conditions for the permissibility of
  punishment, such as rehabilitating criminals, not
  being cruel etc.).

25
3. Be Consistent

• Suppose that Makoto has the two general views
• Killing any person whoever is wrong.
• Death penalty is permissible.
• Is there any problem?
• These views are inconsistent. And inconsistent
  views cannot be all correct. Therefore, Makoto
  should either abandon or modify one of his views.
• One way is to abandon the view that death penalty
  is permissible.
• Another way is to modify the first view to this
  Killing any innocent person (knowingly) is
  wrong.
• In general, consider whether your views can be
  consistently applied in combination with each
  other.

26
Mind consistency between general views and views
on particular cases

• Suppose Makoto holds the view that killing
  oneself is always wrong.
• However, watching a military movie, Makoto finds
  out that on reflection he thinks it is morally
  permissible or even recommendable that a person
  sacrifices his life in order to save others (say,
  by covering up a bomb with his body and armor,
  which otherwise would kill his defense-less
  comrades though he would survive due to the
  armor).
• What does consistency require?
• Consistency requires that Makoto should either
  drop the considered view about the case, or
  should modify the view that killing oneself is
  always wrong.

27
4. Give the Same Judgment When There Is No
Relevant Difference

• Suppose that two students get the same grade in
  every exam.
• Suppose that the instructor gives one of them a B
  (as his total grade) while he gives another a C
  (as her total grade).
• The instructor might be morally criticized in
  that he gives different judgments when there is
  no morally relevant difference.
• He can refute this challenge only by pointing to
  a morally relevant difference, such as a
  difference in the grade in some assignment or a
  difference in the contribution to the class
  discussion.
• He needs to point to a relevant difference. For
  example, the difference in sex is not a relevant
  difference in this context.

28
An Application

• Consider Thomsons Violinist case. (the text,
  p.221)
• You wake up and find yourself back to back in bed
  with a famous unconscious violinist. He has been
  found to have a fatal kidney ailment. The Society
  of Music Lovers has found that you alone have the
  right blood type to help. They have therefore
  kidnapped you, and the violinists circulatory
  system was plugged into yours, so that your
  kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his
  blood. The doctor in the hospital tells you that
  to unplug you would be to kill him. In nine
  months he will recover from his ailment, and can
  safely be unplugged.
• Is it permissible for you to unplug yourself?
• If you says yes and are a pro-life person, here
  comes a challenge. Is there any relevant
  difference between unplugging the unconscious
  violinist and aborting a fetus? If no, even if a
  fetus is a person, it is permissible to abort him
  or her.

29
6. Seek for valid moral principles Introduction
to Moral Theory

• As Timmons points out (pp.5-6), valid moral
  principles will both
• explain why certain actions are right (or wrong),
  and
• help us to arrive at justified moral verdicts
  about actions and rationally settle moral
  disputes. (See the inference on p.5)
• As Timmons points out (pp.1-4), because these two
  are the practical and theoretical aims of moral
  theory, so moral theorists seek for valid moral
  principles.

30
Consider Whether A Valid Moral Principle Can
Explain Your Moral View

• Suppose some people hold the view that because of
  racial differences, it is permissible for them to
  enslave other people.
• One legitimate way to challenge this view is to
  demand the explanation of why racial differences
  matter.
• It seems no plausible moral principle can explain
  the relevance of racial differences.
• Now suppose Makoto holds the view that because
  of differences in academic achievement, it is
  permissible for him to grade students
  differently.
• One legitimate way to challenge this is, again,
  to demand the explanation of why academic
  differences matter.
• Makoto may well explain this by appealing to the
  moral principle of desert the principle of
  desert recommend that the instructor grade
  students according to their academic achievement.
  

31
Continued

• If some plausible moral idea or principle can
  explain the moral view, the moral view is
  plausible to some extent.
• If no plausible moral idea or principle can
  explain the moral view, the moral view is
  suspicious to some extent.

32
Deontic Categories v. Value Categories (Timmons,
7-10)

• Concepts like right, wrong, obligatory,
  merely permissible/optional etc. are used to
  evaluate the morality of actions, i.e., what one
  can intentionally do. They are called deontic
  concepts.
• For the basic deontic categories of actions, see
  Figure 1.1 on Timmons, p.9.
• Concepts like good, bad and
  value-neutral/indifferent are primarily used to
  evaluate objects, feelings, character traits,
  consequences etc. They are called value concepts.
• That is, other things than actions, e.g., a
  picture, a computer, suffering, can be good or
  bad, but only actions can be right or wrong.

33
The Structure of Moral Theory (Timmons, pp. 10-12)

• Moral Theory has two parts theory of right
  conduct, and theory of value.
• Theory of right conduct seeks for principles of
  right or wrong actions.
• Theory of value seeks for principles of good or
  bad things.
• See the components of moral theory on p.11.
• In stating principles, moral theory tells how
  right or wrong actions relate to good or bad
  things.
• For example, one type of theories of right
  conduct (called consequentialism) holds that
  actions are right if and only if the upshot would
  be the best if the action were taken.

34
Reading for Tuesday

• Read
• Hugo Adam Bedau, Capital Punishment, Chapter 5
  (pp.160-194) of the text
• You do not have to read section 30 Equal justice
  and Capital Punishment, pp.188-190 because we
  will discuss this part on the next Thursday.