Lecture Notes on Morality PDF

Jesse Prinz, “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response” https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response META-ETHICAL CLAIMS = statements or questions about the nature of morality itself, rather than about specific moral actions or rules; focuses on the...

Jesse Prinz, “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response” https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response META-ETHICAL CLAIMS = statements or questions about the nature of morality itself, rather than about specific moral actions or rules; focuses on the big picture questions about ethics. - ie. What does good or bad really mean? Are moral values universal or subjective?”). - Not about whether moral standards are correct - Beyond the realm of ethical disagreement - “What is it for people to think and act ethically?” MORAL OBJECTIVISM = there are moral facts independent of what anyone thinks or feels, etc. OBJECTIVE = based on observable facts, evidence or reality, not personal feelings or opinions. - ie. The earth orbits the sun is an objective fact. SUBJECTIVE = based on personal feelings, opinions, interpretations, or perspectives. - ie. vanilla is the best ice cream flavour. OBJECTIVE ARGUMENT EXAMPLE: - P: cultures have incompatible moral codes. C: morality is not an objective matter. “People disagree about topic X. Therefore, X is not an objective topic.” MORAL RELATIVISM = there are moral facts dependent on what someone thinks, feels, etc. - Something subjective that makes it the case. NIHILIST = thinks there are no moral facts. - ie. Atheists think that there are no religions. RELATIVISTS = believes that what is “right” or “wrong” depends on the situation, culture, or individual perspective (there is no one-size-fits-all rule for morality). - Believes that both conflicting moral beliefs can be true. CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH = correspondence between thought and reality that makes it true. - ie. I think the earth is round (thought). True, because the earth is round (reality) COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH = how beliefs and other vehicles of truth are connected with other subjective entities. DENIED VARIATION MATTERS = arguing that even if the premise is true, it doesn’t rationally support the conclusion. - P: cultures disagree about morality. C: morality is relative, not objective. - Prinz’s reply: the analogy is bad. Scientific disagreement is not relevantly similar to moral disagreement. DENIED VARIATION = assumes that variation of differences do not affect the truth of the premise or conclusion. - P: stealing is wrong. C: Therefore, stealing is always wrong, no matter the situation. - Denied variation because the argument denies variation. It implies that morality is absolute and doesn’t depend on context , like why someone stole (no matter the situation). - Prinz’s reply: we wouldn’t agree with the moral judgements of certain groups, even if we were in the same circumstances, or had the same non-moral beliefs, so there really are different values across cultures. ARGUMENTS = if you have a value judgement in the premise, you need a fact that ties it together to draw a relevant conclusion. - Premise: everything non-traditional is wrong (value judgement). Premise: gay marriage is not traditional (factual claim). Conclusion: gay marriage is wrong Prinz’s Main Argument: - P: Cultures have incompatible moral codes. C: Morality is relative to given culture (and not objective). SCIENTIFIC DISAGREEMENT: due to some people having facts (ie. observations) that others don’t have, or poor instruments (ie. telescopes); moral disagreement isn’t like that. CONVERGENCE = different things coming together or become similar over time. SCIENTIFIC DISAGREEMENT AND MORALITY: - When science is identified, they are corrected; moral errors aren’t like that. - Evidence of science convergence; moral thinking isn’t like that (no evidence of agreement over time). - ie. “Scientists disagree, but there are objective scientific facts. Therefore, disagreement alone is not a good reason for concluding that the subject matter (of the disagreement) is ‘relative’ rather than objective.