1. Introduction to Moral Theory: The Nature of Evaluation of Moral Theories

 

 

Metaethics explores the connection between values, reasons for action, and human motivation. One way to address questions raised by Metaethics is Moral realism, the belief that there are moral facts in the same way there are scientific facts. Another way to address questions raised by Metaethics is Moral Antirealism. Moral Antirealism is the belief that there are no moral facts. When we make claims about moral facts, we do it in terms of Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism. To help us through problems, we have ethical theories. Depending on the ethical theory, an act may be good or bad, right or wrong. Good and bad are value concepts, while right and wrong are deontic concepts. We should think of a deontic rule the same way we think of a deductive argument. We can think about value concepts in terms of inductive reasoning, but only somewhat. When we evaluate moral theories, we seek the Theoretical Aim of Moral Theory and the Practical Aim of Moral theory. Finally, the text offers a rubric for evaluating moral theories.

Meta-Ethics

Metaethics is the endeavor to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, dialogue, discourse, talk, and practice. Meta-ethics is all about "what morality is? Can morality be found in nature? Do moral facts exist? Are moral facts and morality in general made up by people? Ethical theories are a systematized effort to deal with morality and moral facts. Ethical theories pertain to practical questions about figuring out what is right and wrong, good and bad. But really, Ethical theories are an attempt to answer the questions raised by Metaethics. One way Ethical theories address questions raised by Metaethics is by starting with assumptions.

"Within the domain of Metaethics, there is a broad range of questions and puzzles, including:

“Is morality more a matter of taste than truth?

Are moral standards culturally relative?

Are there moral facts?

If there are moral facts, what is their origin?

How is it that they set an appropriate standard for our behavior?

How might moral facts be related to other facts (about psychology, happiness, human conventions…)?

And how do we learn about the moral facts, if there are any?”

These questions lead naturally to puzzles about the meaning of moral claims as well as about moral truth and the justification of our moral commitments. Metaethics explores as well the connection between values, reasons for action, and human motivation, asking how it is that moral standards might provide us with reasons to do or refrain from doing as it demands. It addresses many of the issues commonly bound up with the nature of freedom and its significance (or not) for moral responsibility. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/)

Moral Realism

One way to address questions raised by Metaethics is Moral realism. Moral realism is the belief that there are moral facts in the same way there are scientific facts. According to this view, any moral proposition can only be true or false. This is similar to how logical propositions are treated generally. Similar to how the statement 'if you walked to school, then you went to class' and 'whether you followed a rule that says wear a mask on entry' has a truth value so do moral propositions. It might feel good to help somebody; the feeling that I have when helping someone is either good or bad, right or wrong. For many of us, our intuition, our inner feelings toward things, tell us that something is right.

Problems with Moral Realism

There are some problems with moral realism. For instance, if there are moral facts, then where they are? Are they testable? And why is there so much dispute over them? The question of  ‘why isn't morality more like science?' brings us to the Grounding Problem. The Grounding Problem of ethics is the search for a foundation for our moral beliefs. It's the search for something solid that would make our moral beliefs true in a clear, objective, and unmoving way.

Moral antirealism

Another way to address questions raised by meta-ethics and refute moral realist claims while addressing the ground problem is Moral Antirealism. Moral Antirealism is the belief that moral propositions don't refer to objective features of the world at all. There are no moral facts. Thus while it might feel good to help somebody, or it may be right to help somebody, goodness, and rightness are not things that exist in the world. If all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would still be buildings, cars, clouds, planets, and stars, but would there be goodness? Would there be right and wrong? We might say that stealing is wrong, but where is this property of wrongness? Can it be observed in a lab? Even if stealing is wrong in one instance, I can certainly think of instances where many would agree that stealing someone's property was the most moral thing one could do. Freeing slaves could be considered looting or even theft when slavery was the law of the land. Wrongness certainly isn't a universal constant in a similar way to the speed of light.

One Problem Moral antirealism – Moral Subjectivity

One problem with Moral antirealism is the possibility that it could lead you to Moral Subjectivity. In Moral Subjectivity, moral statements can be true and false- right or wrong – but they refer only to people's attitudes rather than their actions. The problem with Moral Subjectivism is that our preferences key into personal attitudes but not into actual, objective moral facts about the world; this is related to moral relativism. When you hear people say, "You have your opinion, and I have mine," about moral quandaries, this is a form of moral subjectivity. Now, if someone says, "You have your opinion, and I have mine" about which sports team is better, that's generally not problematic; however, when the same is said about vaccines, murdering poor people, or Rob Schneider, you don't get your own opinion. If you don't think so, imagine having a conversation with someone who says, "I just believe those indigenous people are inferior degenerates who should be exterminated as soon as possible, and that's just my opinion." Would you

a. leave, believing that they are wrong.

b. punch them in the face because they are just soooo wrong

c. fully agree with them.

d. Say, "I disagree with you, but it is ok for you to have that opinion.

We are all committed to some form of moral realism.

Generally, we are all committed to some form of moral realism. We tend to hold on to our belief that there are moral facts. But we hold this in a minimalist way. While we can't study moral properties in a lab, the either/or rightness/wrongness, good/bad, true false nature of moral propositions can help resolve moral disagreements. Both propositions can't be correct. For example, you are hanging with some friends in an industrial Alley in North city on Angelica. One of your friends tells you, "You know I got fired from that place last year, right when the pandemic started." He picks up a softball-sized piece of concrete and says, "I'm gonna throw it in the window." You tell your friend, "Don't do that, man. This is wrong, don't you see?" Now you both can't be right. So, taking a moral realist perspective, you determine the correct course of action.

Moral Facts –Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism

You can take two paths if you believe in Moral Facts. They are 1. Moral Absolutism – the claim that there are moral standards against which moral questions can be judged. And 2. Moral Relativism – the claim that there is more than one moral position on any given issue can be correct.

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism can be seen as a normative or moral take on Cultural Relativism, thus giving cultural relativism two forms. Descriptive Cultural Relativism and Normative Cultural Relativism. Descriptive Cultural Relativism claims that a person's moral beliefs differ from culture to culture. This is simply stating a fact. Normative Cultural Relativism claims that it's not your beliefs but moral facts themselves that differ from culture to culture.

Problem with Moral Relativism

The problem with moral relativism is that ‘if every culture is the sole arbiter of what’s right for it, that means no culture can actually be wrong.’ And ‘if what everyone is doing right now is right, relative to their own culture, then there’s never any reason to change anything.’

Assignment 1

Consider moral relativism as you do an assignment:

“If every culture is the sole arbiter of what’s right for it, that means no culture can actually be wrong.”

What's wrong with this theory?

Get some paper to state why you do or do not accept this theory.

We all hold on to some sort of Moral Absolutism.

We all hold on to some sort of Moral Absolutism. Moral Absolutism – the claim that there are moral standards against which moral questions can be judged. For example, One of your friends tells you, "You know I got fired from that place last year, right when the pandemic started." He picks up a softball-sized piece of concrete and says, "I'm gonna throw it in the window." You tell your friend, "Don't do that, man. This is wrong, don't you see?" You both can't be right.

Ethical Theories

To help us through problems, we have ethical theories. Ethical theories are an attempt to answer the questions raised by Metaethics. One way Ethical theories address questions raised by Metaethics is by using starting assumptions. Ethical Theories have starting assumptions, which shouldn't be surprising because, really, all of our beliefs rest on some basic, assumed beliefs.

For example:

 Natural Law Theory – God gave us natural abilities.

 Utilitarianism – we seek pleasure.

Deontic Concepts and Value Concepts

There are two kinds of concepts that we utilize when discussing ethical theories. Depending on the ethical theory, an act may be good or bad, right or wrong. Good or bad are value concepts, and right and wrong are Deontic Concepts.

Deontic Concepts

Right and wrong are Deontic Concepts. This means they are concerned with what we ought to do or ought not to do. Essentially we are concerned with whether an action is obligatory, wrong, or optional. Given the examples below, argue as to whether the subject's action is obligatory, wrong, or optional.

Deontic Concepts and Deductive Reasoning

We should think of a deontic rule the same way we think of a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.

For example (deontic example)  – If you are a bachelor, then you are an unmarried man. For the sake of argument, I am excluding monks and priests because a bachelor is someone who could be married, holding all else equal.

Likewise, when we consider an example in deontic ethics, someone either follows the rule or does not follow ther rule. However, the subject is much broader than deontic ethics when we think of deduction. Deduction is generally used descriptively as in the bachelor example, but due to its broad nature, its principles can be applied to deontic ethics.

Example – It is wrong to lie.

It is clear that someone is either following this principle or they are not. There is no room for error. Similarly, holding all else equal, you are either a bachelor or you are not.

Value Concepts

Good and bad are Value Concepts. To say something is good means it has a positive value. To say something is bad means that it has a negative value. Something is either intrinsically good (there is something about it that makes it good in itself), or it is extrinsically good (it possess goodness only in how it is related to that which is intrinsically good). Given the examples below, argue as to whether the subject's action has a positive or negative value.

Value Concepts and Inductive Reasoning

We can think about value concepts in terms of inductive reasoning, but only somewhat. In an inductive argument, the conclusion is claimed to follow with a degree of probability. The premises make it likely for the conclusion to be true, or it is improbable that the conclusion is false if the premises are true. Essentially a conclusion is more true than it is false. Likewise, something can be more good than bad.

Inductive example: I see low-hanging dark clouds; I assume it will rain.

Value Example: It is good, to be honest, most of the time, but sometimes you have to lie to spare someone's feelings.

In the Inductive example, we see that while it is likely that it will rain, there can be no certainty, there may be a fire, and you just haven't smelled the smoke yet. And in the 'values' example, you shouldn't be honest all of the time; there are times when you must lie. Again, just like when we think of deduction, the subject of induction is also much broader than value ethics. Induction is generally used descriptively, as in the rain example, but due to its broad nature, its principles can be applied to value ethics.

Evaluating moral theories

When we evaluate moral theories, we are seeking the Theoretical Aim of Moral Theory and the Practical Aim of Moral theory.

Theoretical Aim of Moral Theory

When we identify features of actions that make them right or wrong or good or bad, we are looking at the Theoretical Aim of Moral Theory. The purpose of the Theoretical Aim of Moral Theory is to look at the underlying features that make something right or wrong etc. serve as a criterion of rightness or goodness.

Assignment 2

Students will come up with a moral principle

Example – lying is wrong

Students will apply that principle to an example.

Example – Carol was told by her job to lie, but Carol didn't. She told the truth about a product.

Students will come up with a conclusion as to the morality of an action.

Example – Carol was right

Practical Aim of Moral theory

When seeking the Practical Aim of Moral theory, we are attempting to show a decision-making procedure that can be used to guide correct moral reasoning and decision-making about matters of moral concern.

Rubric for evaluating moral theories

Our text offers a rubric for evaluating moral theories. In this rubric, we are looking for Consistency, Determinacy, Applicability, Publicity, Internal Support, External Support, and Explanatory Power.

Consistency – A moral theory should be consistent in the sense that its principles, together with relevant factual information, yield consistent moral verdicts about the morality of actions, persons, and other items of moral evaluation.

Determinacy – A moral theory should feature principles that, together with factual information, yield determinate moral verdicts about the morality of actions, persons, and other items of moral evaluations in a wide range of cases

Applicability – The principles of a moral theory should be applicable in the sense that they specify relevant information about actions and other items of evaluation that human beings can typically obtain and use to arrive at moral verdicts on the basis of those principles.

Publicity – The principles of a moral theory of right conduct should not (together with relevant factual information) imply that it is morally wrong to teach or make public those principles.

Internal-Support – A moral theory whose principles, together with relevant factual information, imply our considered moral beliefs receives support – internal support- from those beliefs. On the other beliefs, that is evidence against the correctness of the theory.

External Support – The fact that principles of a moral theory are supported by well-established non-moral beliefs and assumptions (especially those from areas of non-moral inquiry) is some evidence in favor of the theory. On the other hand, the fact that the principles of some moral theory conflict with established non-moral beliefs and assumptions are evidence against the theory.

Explanatory Power – A moral theory should feature principles that explain why actions, persons, and other items of evaluation are right or wrong, good or bad.

Conclusion

Now we can get into some of those ethical theories.

 

1). Terms like right and wrong are Deontic Concepts. This means they are concerned with what we ought to do or ought not to do. Essentially we are concerned with whether an action is obligatory, wrong, or optional. Given the examples below, argue as to whether the subject's action is obligatory, wrong, or optional.

1)   Terms like good and bad are Value Concepts. To say something is good means it has a positive value. To say something is bad means that it has a negative value. Something is either intrinsically good (there is something about it that makes it good in itself), or it is extrinsically good (it possess goodness only in how it is related to that which is intrinsically good). Given the examples below, argue as to whether the subject's action has a positive or negative value.

2)   Theoretical Aim of Moral Theory- is to identify features of actions that make them right or wrong or good or bad. The underlying features that make something right or wrong etc. serve as a criterion of rightness or goodness.

(a)Students will come up with a moral principle

(i)  Example – lying is wrong

(b)            Students will apply that principle to an example.

(i)  Example - Carol was told by her job to lie, but Carol didn't. She told the truth about a product.

(c)Students will come up with a conclusion as to the morality of an action.

(i)  Example - Carol was right

 

3)   Practical Aim of Moral theory – is to discover a decision procedure that can be used to guide correct moral reasoning and decision making about matters of moral concern.

4)   Rubric for evaluating moral theories

1.    Consistency – A moral theory should be consistent in the sense that its principles, together with relevant factual information, yield consistent moral verdicts about the morality of actions, persons, and other items of moral evaluation.

2.    Determinacy – A moral theory should feature principles that, together with factual information, yield determinate moral verdicts about the morality of actions, persons, and other items of moral evaluations in a wide range of cases

3.    Applicability – The principles of a moral theory should be applicable in the sense that they specify relevant information about actions and other items of evaluation that human beings can typically obtain and use to arrive at moral verdicts on the basis of those principles.

4.    Publicity – The principles of a moral theory of right conduct should not (together with relevant factual information) imply that it is morally wrong to teach or make public those principles.

5.    Internal-Support – A moral theory whose principles, together with relevant factual information, imply our considered moral beliefs receives support – internal support- from those beliefs. On the other beliefs, that is evidence against the correctness of the theory.

6.    External Support – The fact that principles of a moral theory are supported by well-established non-moral beliefs and assumptions (especially those from areas of non-moral inquiry) is some evidence in favor of the theory. On the other hand, the fact that the principles of some moral theory conflict with established non-moral beliefs and assumptions are evidence against the theory.

7.    Explanatory Power – A moral theory should feature principles that explain why actions, persons, and other items of evaluation are right or wrong, good or bad.