Shafer-Landau (2020): A Concise Introduction to Ethics Summary PDF

Shafer-Landau (2020): A Concise Introduction to Ethics Inhoud {#inhoud.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ====== [Chapter 1: What Is Morality? 2](#_Toc90546513) [A. Conventional and Critical Morality 2](#a.-conventional-and-critical-morality) [B. The Branches of Moral Philosophy 3](#b.-the-branches-of-moral-p...

Shafer-Landau (2020): A Concise Introduction to Ethics Inhoud {#inhoud.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ====== [Chapter 1: What Is Morality? 2](#_Toc90546513) [A. Conventional and Critical Morality 2](#a.-conventional-and-critical-morality) [B. The Branches of Moral Philosophy 3](#b.-the-branches-of-moral-philosophy) [C. Moral Starting Points 3](#c.-moral-starting-points) [D. Morality and Other Normative Systems 4](#d.-morality-and-other-normative-systems) [E. Morality and Religion 4](#e.-morality-and-religion) [Chapter 2: Moral Reasoning 5](#chapter-2-moral-reasoning) [A. Validity and Soundness 5](#a.-validity-and-soundness) [B. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 6](#b.-necessary-and-sufficient-conditions) [C. Valid Argument Forms 6](#c.-valid-argument-forms) [D. Fallacies 7](#d.-fallacies) [Chapter 3: Scepticism about Morality 8](#chapter-3-scepticism-about-morality) [A. Egoism 8](#a.-egoism) [B. Relativism 10](#b.-relativism) [C. Error Theory 11](#c.-error-theory) [Chapter 6: Consequentialism 11](#chapter-6-consequentialism) [A. The Nature of Consequentialism 12](#a.-the-nature-of-consequentialism) [B. The Attractions of Utilitarianism 12](#b.-the-attractions-of-utilitarianism) [C. Some Difficulties for Utilitarianism 13](#c.-some-difficulties-for-utilitarianism) [Chapter 7: Kantian Ethics 15](#chapter-7-kantian-ethics) [A. Consistency and Fairness 15](#a.-consistency-and-fairness) [B. The Principle of Universalizability 15](#b.-the-principle-of-universalizability) [C. Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives 16](#c.-hypothetical-and-categorical-imperatives) [D. Assessing the Principle of Universalizability 17](#d.-assessing-the-principle-of-universalizability) [E. Kant on Absolute Moral Duties 17](#e.-kant-on-absolute-moral-duties) [F. The Principle of Humanity 17](#f.-the-principle-of-humanity) [Chapter 8: Social Contract Theory 18](#chapter-8-social-contract-theory) [A. The Background of the Social Contract Theory 18](#a.-the-background-of-the-social-contract-theory) [B. The Prisoner's Dilemma 19](#b.-the-prisoners-dilemma) [C. Cooperation and the State of Nature 19](#c.-cooperation-and-the-state-of-nature) [D. The Advantages of Contractarianism 20](#d.-the-advantages-of-contractarianism) [E. The Role of Consent 21](#e.-the-role-of-consent) [F. Disagreement among the Contractors 21](#f.-disagreement-among-the-contractors) [Chapter 10: Virtue Ethics 21](#chapter-10-virtue-ethics) [A. The Standard of Right Action 21](#a.-the-standard-of-right-action) [B. Moral Complexity 22](#b.-moral-complexity) [C. Moral Understanding 22](#c.-moral-understanding) [D. The Nature of Virtue 22](#d.-the-nature-of-virtue) [E. Does Virtue Ethics Offer Adequate Moral Guidance? 22](#e.-does-virtue-ethics-offer-adequate-moral-guidance) [F. Who Are the Moral Role Models? 23](#f.-who-are-the-moral-role-models) [G. Conflict and Contradiction 23](#g.-conflict-and-contradiction) [H. The Priority Problem 23](#h.-the-priority-problem) [Chapter 11: Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care 24](#chapter-11-feminist-ethics-and-the-ethics-of-care) [A. The Elements of Feminist Ethics 24](#a.-the-elements-of-feminist-ethics) [B. The Ethics of Care 24](#b.-the-ethics-of-care) [C. The Importance of Emotions 25](#c.-the-importance-of-emotions) [D. Against Unification 25](#d.-against-unification) [E. Partiality and Concreteness 25](#e.-partiality-and-concreteness) [F. Downplaying Rights 26](#f.-downplaying-rights) [G. Challenges for Feminist Ethics 26](#g.-challenges-for-feminist-ethics) []{#_Toc90546513.anchor} Chapter 1: What Is Morality? ============================ - There is no widely agreed-on definition of morality, however we can get a good sense of the subject matter by doing these 4 things: 1. Being clear about the difference between conventional and critical morality 2. Distinguishing the different branches of moral philosophy and their central questions 3. Identifying starting points for moral thinking 4. Contrasting morality with other systems of guidance, including religious ones A. Conventional and Critical Morality ------------------------------------- - Conventional morality: the system of widely accepted rules and principles, created by and for human beings, that members of a culture or society use to govern their own lives and to assess the actions and motivations of others - The elements of conventional morality can be known by any astute social observer, sinch gaining such knowledge is a matter of appreciating what most people in a society or culture actually take to be right or wrong - SL is not referring to conventional morality in this book(!) - Most of us assume, as SL does too, that the popularity of a moral view is not the guarantee of its truth conventional morality can sometimes be mistaken then there may be some independent critical morality that: 1. Does not have its origin in social agreements 2. Is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular prejudices 3. Can serve as the true standard for determining when conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen into error B. The Branches of Moral Philosophy ----------------------------------- - 3 core areas of moral philosophy: - Value theory: what is the good life? What is worth pursuing for its own sake? How do we improve our lot in life? What is happiness, and is it the very same thing as well-being? - Normative ethics: what are our fundamental moral duties? What makes right actions right? Which character traits count as virtues, which as vices, and why? Who should our role models be? Do the ends justify the means, or are there certain types of action that should never be done under any circumstances? - Metaethics: what is the status of moral claims and advice? Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them true? Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how? Do we always have good reason to do our moral duty? C. Moral Starting Points ------------------------ - Some sceptics about morality deny that there are any proper starting points for ethical reflection, they believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases and gut feelings this outlook encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no moral views are any better than others. According to the author this scepticism should only be accepted as a last resort - \[As we aren't that desperate (yet)\] let's assume some fairly plausible ethical assumptions, claims that can get us started in our moral thinking: - Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism - Everyone is morally fallible - Friendship is valuable - We are not obliged to do the impossible morality can demand only so much of us - Children bear less moral responsibility than adults - Justice is a very important moral good - Deliberately hurting other people requires justification - Equals ought to be treated equally - Self-interest isn't the only ethical consideration - Agony is bad - Might doesn't make it happen - Free and informed requests prevent rights violations - There are a number of points to make about these claims: - This list isn't meant to be exhaustive - SL is not claiming that the items on the list are beyond criticism - Many of these claims require interpretation in order to apply them in a satisfying way D. Morality and Other Normative Systems --------------------------------------- - A normative system is made up of a set of norms (standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, and rules that we should not break) - There are many such systems, but we are restricting our focus to 4 of the most important of them, those that govern: - The law - Etiquette - Self-interest - Tradition - \[Important to remember is that all of these normative systems aren't necessarily moral, it is legal to cheat on your partner as much as it is sometimes in your own self-interest to set the car of said partner on fire\] E. Morality and Religion ------------------------ - Because many people look to religion for moral guidance, it is important to understand the relation between morality and religion, and to explain why SL will not be relying on religious commitments to present and asses the views under discussion - Many people think: no God = morality is a sham the only legitimate source of morality is God's commands atheism (the belief that God doesn't exist) spells the doom of morality - Underlying idea: because morality is a set of norms, there must be someone with the authority to create them without God there is no one but we human beings to make up the moral law and we lack the authority to do the work a morality built upon our imperfections would lack credibility - The vision of God's role in morality rests on a crucial assumption: morality must be created by someone Divine Command Theory: An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it - Problems with this view: - The Divine Command Theory makes morality depend on God's commands, yet God may not exist - If the Divine Command Theory is true, then a morally perfect and omniscient (all-knowing) God could have created a flawless morality that required us to rape, steal, and kill, and forbade us from any acts of kindness or generosity a morally perfect God could not have issued such commands -- anyone who did so would be morally imperfect the Divine Command Theory is false - God doesn't have to be the author of morality in order to play a vital role in teaching us how to live he can be telling us what morality is without creating it, but there are some worries: - Those who are not religious will need to look elsewhere for moral guidance - God may not exist - We must select a source of religious wisdom from among many choices - We must know how to interpret said source - Those who seek divine guidance in trying to lead a moral life may succeed, but several conditions must be met: 1. God exists 2. We can be justified in believing that God exists 3. Theists (those who believe that God exists) must be justified in selecting a particular source of religious and moral wisdom 4. Theists must also defend specific interpretations of those sources Chapter 2: Moral Reasoning ========================== - Moral reasoning involves at least 2 things: - A set of reasons - A conclusion that these reasons are meant to support - When you put these 2 things together you have what philosophers call an argument any chain of thought in which reasons (premises) are offered in support of a particular conclusion - Not all arguments are equally good we can land at the wrong conclusion using the right arguments but we can also arrive at the right conclusion using wrong arguments our moral thinking should have 2 complementary goals: - Getting it right - Being able to back up our views with flawless reasoning - This provides 2 tests for good moral reasoning: - We must avoid false beliefs - The logic of our moral thinking must be rigorous and error-free A. Validity and Soundness ------------------------- - The logic of an argument is matter of how its premises are related to its conclusion in the best arguments, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion logically valid - Validity is a matter of how well an argument's premises support the conclusion - How can we tell a valid from an invalid argument: - Identify all of an argument's premises - Imagine that all of them are true (even if you know that some are false) - Then ask yourself this question: supposing that all of the premises were true, could the conclusion be false? - If yes, the argument is invalid. The premises do not guarantee the conclusion - If no, the argument is valid. The premises offer perfect logical support for the conclusion - An argument's validity is matter of the argument's structure it has nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of an argument's premises or conclusion - Truth isn't everything and neither is logic we need them both if arguments are both valid and true they are sound arguments - You can't refer to arguments as true or false premises and conclusions can be true or false, arguments are neither arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound B. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions -------------------------------------- - A sufficient condition is a guarantee: if X is a sufficient condition of Y, then X suffices for Y; X is enough for Y; X guarantees Y. If X is true, then Y is true; if X is the case, then Y is the case (e.g. being a human is a sufficient condition of being a mammal) - A necessary condition is a requirement: if X is a necessary condition of Y, then X is needed for Y; X is a prerequisite of Y; X is required for Y. Y can only be true if X is true; Y can only occur if X does (e.g. having some money is a necessary condition of being a millionaire) - Both sufficient and necessary conditions are conditions of or for something else it doesn't make sense to speak of something as a sufficient or necessary condition if someone told you that this was a guarantee, or that it was a requirement, you'd naturally ask: a guarantee of what? What is it a requirement for? why is this important: - One reason: one of the big goals of ethical thinking is to try to identify a good, wide-ranging test of what's morally right (or wrong). One way to think about such a test is to view it as a statement of conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for being morally right (or wrong). A claim that supplies necessary and sufficient conditions is called a biconditional, because it incorporates two conditions a shorthand way to state biconditionals is to use this phrase: if and only if (e.g.: someone is a bachelor if and only if he is an unmarried male being an unmarried male is both sufficient and necessary for being a bachelor) C. Valid Argument Forms ----------------------- - Necessary and sufficient conditions are important not just because of the role they play in constructing a general test for the morality of actions they are central to understanding why some classic forms of valid argumentation work as they do - There are 3 argument forms that SL will be using a lot: - Modus ponens - Form: - Premise 1: if P, then Q - Premise 2: P - Conclusion: Q - Every instance of modus ponens reasoning is logically valid, why? The first premise in the argument is a conditional (an 'if-then' sentence) - If = the antecedent that which comes before - Then = the consequent that which comes after - The second premise says that the guarantee is in place the antecedent is true the consequent is true as well - Modus tollens - Form: - Premise 1: if P, then Q - Premise 2: Q is false - Conclusion: P is false - In this type of argument, the conditional tells you that the consequent is a requirement for the antecedent - Another way of writing it: - Premise 1: P only if Q - Premise 2: Q if false - Conclusion: P is false - Hypothetical syllogism - Form: - Premise 1: if P, then Q - Premise 2: If Q, then R - Conclusion: if P, then R D. Fallacies ------------ - Fallacy = a mistake in reasoning - A formal fallacy is a kind of argument all of whose instances are logically invalid no argument that commits a formal fallacy is ever logically valid - Informal fallacies are other kinds of mistaken patters in reasoning - Classic kinds of formal fallacies: - Fallacy of denying the antecedent - Format: - Premise 1: if P, then Q - Premise 2: P is false - Conclusion: Q is false - The problem is that when you assert a conditional and then deny its antecedent, you have given no basis for denying the consequent - Fallacy of affirming the consequent - Format: - Premise 1: if P, then Q - Premise 2: Q is true - Conclusion: P is true - Informal fallacies: - Ad hominem fallacy - Occurs when you try to undermine a position by attacking the person who is advancing it - Appeals to irrelevant emotions - Occurs when someone tries to convince you of a claim by playing on your emotions, rather than by offering facts and evidence that bear the truth of the claim - The appeal to authority - Involves relying on authority figures to substantiate a position outside of their area of expertise - Straw man fallacy - Depicts an opponent's position in a way that makes it easy to refute, thereby diverting attention from the real position being advanced - The terrible argument = the stray man - Appeal to ignorance (ignoratio elenchi) can take 2 forms 1. Occurs when one thinks that a claim is true because it hasn't been proven false 2. Occurs when one thinks that a claim is false because it hasn't been proven true - Hasty generalization - Occurs when someone illicitly draws a general lesson from only a small handful of cases Chapter 3: Scepticism about Morality ==================================== - SL describes the 3 most important sceptical worries about morality: - Ethical egoism we have no obligations to others, the only moral duty we have is towards ourselves - Relativism denies the objectivity of ethics and views moral rules as human creations, as binding (or not) rules of games - Error theory the view that morality is make-believe, that moral claims are never true, that moral knowledge is impossible A. Egoism --------- - You are allowed to help others, but only if doing so is going to benefit you on the long run - If ethical egoism is true, then morality isn't anything like we think it is we assume morality requires us to be generous, compassionate, and benevolent avoid selfishness and self-centredness a recognition that we are not fundamentally more important than others - 3 familiar considerations that people sometimes offer in support of ethical egoism - The Self-Reliance Argument (by Ayn Rand) 1. \[Premise 1:\] The most effective way of making everyone better off is for each person to mind his own business and tend only to his own needs 2. \[Premise 2:\] We ought to take the most effective path to making everyone better off 3. \[Conclusion:\] Therefore, we each ought to mind our own business and tend only to our own needs - There are 2 problems with this argument: - The 1^st^ premise is false those that are in need of help would not be better off if others were to neglect them - The 2^nd^ premise is one that egoists can't accept for ethical egoists, the ultimate moral duty is to maximize personal benefit there is no moral requirement to make everyone better off - The Libertarian Argument (also by Rand) - Libertarians claim that our moral duties to help other people have only 2 sources: - Consent any duty to aid another person stems from our voluntarily agreeing to accept that duty - Reparation any duty to aid another person stems from our having violated someone's rights, and so owing a duty to repair the wrong we've done - Problem: even if the argument is sound, it cannot support ethical egoism egoists cannot accept the argument's central claim egoists deny that there are 2 ultimate sources of moral duty self-interest is the only source of our moral duties - Psychological egoism - The view that our sole motivation is the pursuit of self-interest if this is true, then altruism (the direct desire to benefit others for their own sake, without any ulterior motive), does not exist - The argument from Psychological Egoism \[with SL's comments\]: 1. If psychological egoism is true, then we can't be altruistic true by definition 2. If we can't be altruistic, then it can't be our duty to be altruistic very plausible 3. Therefore, if psychological egoism is true, then it can't be our duty to be altruistic follows logically from 1 and 2, so if they are true, then 3 must be true as well 4. Psychological egoism is true not that plausible the evidence is strongly opposed to such a drastic claim 5. Therefore, it can't be our duty to be altruistic - All the evidence we have about how humans are motivated takes 2 forms: 6. Testimony how people describe their own motivations 7. Behaviour how they act - If you are committed in advance to denying the possibility that anyone's testimony or behaviour can count as good evidence for altruism, then your commitment to psychological egoism is a matter of blind faith rather than serous attention to evidence - Psychological egoists have offered some support for their view: - The Argument from Our Strongest Desires \[with SL's comments\] 1. Whenever you do something, you are motivated by your strongest desire let's say this is true, it doesn't show that our strongest desires are always for personal gain 2. Whenever you are motivated by your strongest desire, you are pursuing your self-interest begs the question (arguing on the basis of a reason that will appeal only to people who already accept the argument's conclusion) it preaches to the converted why couldn't my desire be aimed at your welfare? 3. Therefore, whenever you do something, you are pursuing your self-interest - The Argument from Expected Benefit 1. Whenever you do something, you expect to be better off as a result seems to ignore the existence of pessimists, and even some optimists sometimes expect to suffer for their actions 2. If you expect to be better off as a result of your actions, then you are aiming to promote your self-interest implausible whenever you expect your action to result in X, then your aim is to get X (not necessarily true) 3. Therefore, whenever you do something, you are aiming to promote your self-interest B. Relativism ------------- - Ethical relativism denies that there are any objective moral standards (standards that apply to everyone, even if people don't believe that they do, even if people are indifferent to them, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy anyone's desires they are objectively true whenever they accurately tell us what these objective moral standards are or what they require of us) - They do believe that some moral standards are correct, and that these determine which moral claims are true and which are false never objectively correct, only relative to each society morality is a human construct (we make it up) - Relativism says that an act is morally acceptable just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those ideals - Why is relativism attractive? - Morality is made especially for humans (and not for, for example, animals) - It provides a straightforward, scientifically respectable account of morality - The ease with which relativists can explain the possibility of moral knowledge - It is egalitarian in ways that many find deeply attractive we are unable to judge one culture's moral code as morally superior (or inferior) to another's - It offers strong support for a policy of tolerance mistake: if a culture deeply values intolerance, then for those in such a society, being tolerant is immoral - Concerns about relativism: - It is a weak basis on which to support the value of tolerance \[see the point about cultures valuing intolerance\] - It implies that a culture's fundamental moral code is infallible (incapable of being mistaken) if relativism is true, then a society's ultimate moral principles can be based on prejudice etc. and still be correct - The iconoclast (the person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom) would always be morally mistaken even though it makes sense to ask whether the basic principles of one's society are morally acceptable - It has trouble accounting for moral progress in our moral beliefs this occurs when more of them are true and, in particular, when our most fundamental beliefs change for the better according to relativists society's deepest beliefs are true by definition and thus can't change for the better - It says that a moral judgment is true just because it correctly describes what a society really stands for different societies have different moral rules and they can't all be right - Relativists escape this problem by claiming that moral judgments are true only relative to social agreements if all we do when making moral judgments is to issue sociological reports about what our society stands for, then cross-cultural moral disagreement vanishes, instead we are talking about how our society feels about such things - People who are part of subcultures sometimes have to choose between allegiance to the larger society and to their particular subculture contradictory moral advice C. Error Theory --------------- - Error theory is defined by 3 essential claims - There are no moral features in this world - No moral judgments are true it follows that there is no moral knowledge knowledge requires truth - Our sincere moral judgments try, and always fail, to describe the moral features of things - Error theorists state that all moral views are equally bankrupt morality is nothing but fiction - They can only vindicate their view if they can show that there is some fatal flaw at the heart of morality depends on what the fundamental error of morality is supposed to be there is really only 1 candidate: there are objective moral standards that supply each of us with categorical reasons (reasons that apply to us regardless of whether acting on them will get us what we want) if this central assumption is mistaken, then the entire enterprise of morality is bankrupt - There are 2 substantial points that error theorists must convince us of - They must show that buying into morality really does assume a commitment to moral objectivity and categorical reasons if morality does not rely on these assumptions, then the error theorist's criticisms will fail - Suppose that the coherence of our moral thinking and practice does indeed depend on the twin assumptions that morality is objective and that it provides us with categorical reasons error theorists must show that at least one of these assumptions is false - Objectivity of morality - Classic argument: there is a lot more disagreement in ethics than there is in science (there is no objective reality in ethics) - Morality is a sham if God does not exist - Science is our exclusive path to understanding reality scientists never have to include moral features in their explanations of \[scientific stuff\] - Categorical reasons - The Argument from Categorical Reasons 1. If there are moral duties, then there are categorical reasons to obey them response: denying that objective moral duties must supply us with reasons for actions 2. There are no categorical reasons response: objective moral duties exist and they provide categorical reasons, there are reasons to behave morally, even if that good behaviour doesn't get us what we want 3. Therefore, there are no objective moral duties - Responses to critique Chapter 6: Consequentialism =========================== - Consequentialism is a family of theories that emphasize the consequences of our actions as the way to determine whether they are right or wrong - Rather than looking to human nature for guidance, or to our motives or intentions \[Kantian ethics\] to determine the morality of actions, consequentialists advise us to look to results A. The Nature of Consequentialism --------------------------------- - Consequentialism says that an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results - Economists have coined a special word for this feature: being optimific (producing the best possible results) - How can we determine whether an act is optimific not always easy in practice, but in theory it has 5 steps: 1. Identify what is intrinsically good -- valuable in and of itself, and worth having for its own sake (familiar candidates include happiness, autonomy, knowledge, and virtue) 2. Identify what is intrinsically bad (e.g. physical pain, mental anguish, sadistic impulses, and the betrayal of innocents) 3. Determine all of your options 4. For each option, determine the value of its results how much of what is intrinsically good/bad will each action bring about 5. Pick the action that yields the greatest net balance of good over bad that is the optimific choice, doing anything else is immoral - We can develop dozes of different versions of consequentialism, depending on which things we regard as intrinsically valuable not a single theory, but a family of theories most prominent version is: act utilitarianism (the version of act consequentialism that says that only well-being is intrinsically valuable, and so says that an act is morally right just because it maximizes overall well-being) - The principle of utility the ultimate utilitarian moral standard, which says that an action is morally right if and only if it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could've performed in the circumstances - Good intentions may earn us praise, they are, according to utilitarians, irrelevant to an action's morality B. The Attractions of Utilitarianism ------------------------------------ - What makes utilitarianism attractive? 1. It is doctrine of impartiality it tells us that the welfare of each person is equally morally valuable 2. Its ability to justify many of our basic moral beliefs things we deem as seriously immoral (e.g. murder) tend to do more harm than good and thus utilitarianism condemns them and things we consider to be morally right (e.g. keeping promises) are commended by utilitarianism 3. Its ability to provide advice about how to resolve moral conflicts 4. It's a doctrine that provides great moral flexibility, no moral rule is absolute (an absolute rule is one that is not to be violated under any conditions) - We ordinarily do best when we obey the familiar moral rules, but there are times when we must stray from the conventional path in order to improve overall welfare 5. Every person is a member of the moral community - To be a member of the moral community is to be important in your own right, it is to be owed a certain amount of respect membership in the moral community imposes a duty on everyone else to take one's needs seriously, for one's own sake \[sounds a bit like Kant's Principle of Humanity to me\] - Nonhuman animals are also members of the moral community their importance does not depend on whether we happen to care about them animals count because they can suffer - Utilitarians allow that it is sometimes okay to harm members of the moral community there are cases in which maximizing overall well-being comes at a price, but we are not allowed to ignore the suffering of others C. Some Difficulties for Utilitarianism --------------------------------------- - It seems like a very demanding theory in 2 respects: - A plausible moral theory is one that most of us can live by, but asking us to be constantly benevolent, how many of us can be so altruistic? - Utilitarians would agree with this, they do *not* believe that we must always be strategizing about how to improve the world, reason: people motivated in this way usually fail to achieve their goal - \[shortly said, the critique still is that a consistently utilitarian lifestyle would be one of great and constant self-sacrifice, but SL makes it a lot harder to understand by mentioning that most utilitarians would in fact not expect anyone to cure world hunger by themself. It's basically distinguishing between theory (constant self-sacrifice) and practice (doing the best you can)\] - Utilitarianism can't make room for supererogation (action that is 'above and beyond the call of duty') they deny that any actions are above and beyond the call of duty - Another worry is the impartiality required by utilitarianism sometimes morality seems to recommend partiality utilitarianism rejects the idea that a person, just because he is my son, my dear friend, or my fellow citizen, is more deserving of my help and attention than others - Utilitarians can argue that there are many situations in which we should give preference to our near and dear, not because they deserve it more/are more important but because that is what is most beneficial - Perhaps the greatest problem for utilitarianism is: we must maximize well-being, but sometimes we can do this only by committing some serious injustice moral theories should not permit, much less require, that we act unjustly - Example: vicarious punishment (the deliberate punishment of innocent victims, designed to deter 3^rd^ parties) - Though the torture and deliberate killing of innocent civilians certainly infringes their rights, the utilitarian will require that it be done if it prevents even greater harm - The Argument from Injustice 1. The correct moral theory will never require us to commit serious injustices 2. Utilitarianism sometimes requires us to commit serious injustices 3. Therefore utilitarianism is not the correct moral theory - Replies from utilitarians to the Argument from Injustice - Justice is also intrinsically valuable utilitarianism can't allow for the independent importance of justice, and that disqualifies it from being a good moral theory if we make small changes to the doctrine it'll be fine - 1 defining feature of utilitarianism is its view that well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, suppose we amend that, and say that justice is also important in its own right we should maximize well-being *and* justice - Problem: what will happen when we can't do both, which should we give priority to? - What seems right to say is that it's sometimes best to prefer well-being to justice, and sometimes not without any principle to sort this out, we don't really have a coherent theory at all - Injustice is never optimific denying premise 2 those who favour this reply say that if we carefully consider all of the results of unfair actions, we'll see that those actions aren't really optimific - Injustice can sometimes prevent great harm, it can, on occasion, also produce great benefits - Justice is only a part, not the whole, of morality denying premise 1 - Of course it is important to respect people's rights, but that is because doing so is usually optimific and when it isn't, rights must be sacrificed - When can justice be sacrificed? - \[Surprise, surprise\] whenever the results of doing so are optimific - Rule consequentialism (the view that an action is morally right just because it is required by an optimific social rule (a rule that meets the following condition: if (nearly) everyone in a society were to accept it, then the results would be optimific)) rather than determine an action's morality by asking about its results, we ask instead about whether the action conforms to a moral rule (most moral theories operate this way \[think of the Golden Rule and the Principle of Universalizability\]) - To know whether a rule is an optimific social rule, follow these 3 steps: 1. Carefully describe the rule 2. Imagine what a society would be like if just about everyone in it accepted the rule 3. Then ask the question: will that society be better off with this rule than with any competing rule - If the answer is yes: this rule is an optimific social rule - If the answer is no: this isn't an optimific social rule, and so is not a genuine moral rule - Just policies maximize well-being, even if, in isolated cases, just actions do not - It supports our belief that morality permits a certain degree of partiality, because policies that allow us to give preference to loved ones and fellow citizens will often be highly beneficial - Critics: - Rule consequentialists demand that we obey moral rules, even when we know that breaking them would yield better results irrational, because rule consequentialists know in advance that their ultimate goal (making the world the best place it can be) will not be fulfilled it's irrational to knowingly defeat your own goals Chapter 7: Kantian Ethics ========================= - Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) remains perhaps the most important voice of opposition to utilitarianism, and to its claim that the ultimate point of morality is to improve well-being rather than do justice A. Consistency and Fairness --------------------------- - There is a natural way to understand what is wrong with the actions in the examples just given \[tax evaders, people who cheat on tests etc.\] in each case, people are making exceptions of themselves their success depends on violating rules that most other people are following - People are inconsistent to the extent that they treat similar cases differently that you can get away with making an exception of yourself doesn't mean it is right to do so - Our deep opposition to unfairness, and the resulting importance we attach to inconstancy, are revealed in 2 very popular tests of morality: 1. What if everyone did that? - If disastrous results would occur if everyone did X, then X is immoral - Problem: this test fails for some cases, it can't serve as a reliable way to learn the morality of actions (being celibate eventually no more children) 2. How would you like it if I did that to you? - Direct application of the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) - Problem 1: the Golden Rule makes morality depend on a person's desires (masochists: the morality of hitting people shouldn't depend on whether you like to take a beating every now and then) - Related problem: fanatics - Some fanatics are so wedded to their cause, that they would accept the suffering that they want to impose on their victims the Golden Rule licenses their extremism because it makes the morality of an action depend entirely on what you want and what you are willing to put up with B. The Principle of Universalizability -------------------------------------- - Kant felt the appeal of the 2 tests just discussed, he agreed that common sense is deeply committed to the importance of fairness and consistency, something that these two tests were trying, but not quite succeeding, in capturing his aim was to identify the ultimate principle of morality, one that would explain the attraction of the 2 tests while correcting for their shortcomings, he thought he had found it in the following standard: the principle of universalizability an act is morally acceptable, if and only if, tits maxim is universalizable - Maxim: the principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something, it has 2 parts: 1. It states what you are about to do 2. It states why you are about to do it - You dictate your own maxims, these are the rules you live by - Kant thought that every action has a maxim whenever we act, we intend to do something, and we have a reason for doing it a maxim is nothing but a record of that intention and its underlying reason - An action's rightness depends on its maxim for Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do with the results the intentions and reasons for action are the most important - How can we tell if a maxim is universalizable: 1. Formulate your maxim clearly -- state what you intend to do and why you intend to do it 2. Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim 3. Then ask: can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world? - If the answer is yes the maxim is universalizable the action is morally acceptable - If the answer is no the maxim is not universalizable the action is immoral - Difference between *what if everyone did that?* test and Kant's Principle of Universalizability - Kant doesn't ask about whether people would be much better off in the imagined world he asks about whether we could achieve our goals in that world goals that everyone could support C. Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives ------------------------------------------- - When we behave immorally, we are reasoning badly we are making mistaken assumptions the immoral conduct is irrational - Hypothetical imperatives: a command of reason that requires a person to take the needed means to getting what she wants they require us, on pain of irrationality, to do certain things, but only because such actions will get us what we want - Categorical imperatives: a command of reason that requires a person's obedience regardless of whether such obedience gets him anything he wants commands of reason, but also rational requirements that apply to a person regardless of what they care about requirements of reason that apply to everyone who possesses reason - All moral duties are categorical imperatives - Kant's Argument for the Irrationality of Immorality 1. If you are rational, then you are consistent 2. If you are consistent, then you obey the principle of universalizability 3. If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally 4. Therefore, if you are rational, then you act morally 5. Therefore, if you act immorally, then you are irrational D. Assessing the Principle of Universalizability ------------------------------------------------ - Unfortunately, the principle of universalizability fails as a general test for the morality of our actions premise 3 says that a maxim's universalizability is a guarantee of an action's rightness false we can act on universalizable maxims and still do wrong - Example: if a criminal robbed a bank in order to cripple it and put it out of business then everyone could act that way also fanatics E. Kant on Absolute Moral Duties -------------------------------- - Kant thought that certain sorts of actions are never permitted, e.g. lying (even if lying could save someone's life) - Kant never provided an argument for the claim that the moral rules that prohibit such things as lying and killing are absolute (an absolute rule is a rule that is never permissibly broken; violating an absolute moral rule is always wrong) - Problem: moral duties might conflict with other moral duties - The morality of action depends on one's maxim Kant assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit not universalizable F. The Principle of Humanity ---------------------------- - Principle of Humanity: always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means - Humanity: all rational and autonomous beings, no matter their species - Since we are rational and autonomous our special moral states is justified - Being autonomous literally means being a self-legislator - As an end: treating someone with the respect they deserve - As a means: dealing with someone so that they help you achieve one of your goals treating someone as in a way that ignores their distinctively human features - One can treat someone as both an end and a means, but one can't treat people both as an end and as a *mere* means - Kant argues that rationality and autonomy support the dignity of each human being, and that everyone is owed a level of respect because of these traits this makes excellent sense of a number of deeply held moral beliefs the most important: 1. It explains the immorality of a fanatic's actions they treat their opponents as mere obstacles to the achievement of their goals 2. The importance of autonomy explains why slavery and rape are always immoral 3. The principle of humanity easily explains our outrage at paternalism (to be paternalistic is to assume the rights and privileges of a parent toward another adult) it is treating autonomous individuals as children 4. Our autonomy is what justifies the attitude of never abandoning hope in people someone is always autonomous and so can always choose to better themself 5. Many people believe in universal human rights moral rights that protect humans from certain kinds of treatment and entitle each of us to a minimum of respect, just because we are human 6. Our autonomy is what explains our practices of holding on another accountable for our deeds and misdeeds we are morally responsible for our choices and actions - Problems with the Principle of Humanity: - The notion of treating someone as an end is vague, and so in principle difficult to apply - Potential difficulty when trying to determine the scope of the moral community the emphasis on rationality and autonomy forces us to draw lines of this community very narrowly - Argument Against Animals \[could also be infants or mentally disabled people, basically anyone who isn't autonomous nor rational\]: 1. If the principle of humanity is true, then animals have no rights 2. If animals have no rights, then it is morally acceptable to torture them 3. Therefore, if the principle of humanity is true, then it is morally acceptable to torture animals 4. It isn't - Kant thought it wrong to torture/mistreat animals, so he agrees with this premise he claimed that harming animals will harden our hearts, and so make it likely that we will mistreat our fellow humans beings that would be immoral - He faces a problem if his prediction is true: Kant forbids us from mistreating animals because doing so will have terrible results, but he bases his theory on the views that results are irrelevant to the morality of actions 5. Therefore, the principle of humanity is false - Destroying someone's property (that isn't rational nor autonomous) should be moral, but it isn't because it would be wronging the owner of the property the property has no rights but it would still be wrong to harm it - This offers no protection to wild animals - Domesticated animals have no moral protection against their owners Chapter 8: Social Contract Theory ================================= - The social contract theory \[henceforth: SCT), also known as contractarianism, originated as a political theory and only later developed into a theory of morality - According to the SCT actions are morally right just because they are permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational people would agree to live by, on the condition that others obey these rules as well \[in the political theory the word 'action' was replaced by the word 'law'\] A. The Background of the Social Contract Theory ----------------------------------------------- - The political origins of the SCT can be traced back to the ancient Greeks Socrates: we are all by nature largely, or entirely, self-interested - Everyone wants to be at the top but only a few can make it there, so what do we do? if we are rational we will each agree to curb our self-interest and cooperate with each other (conditionally, on the condition that others do so as well) - If we all stop trying to get the better of each other, and instead agree to see a little less for ourselves, then we'll all be better off according to the SCT this is what reason and morality require from us - If everyone were to give up the chance of an absolutely fabulous life would mean that everyone would get a pretty decent life and would avoid having a terrible life B. The Prisoner's Dilemma ------------------------- - \[, here's a video that I was forced to watch over and over again in economics class in high school that also pretty much explains what the prisoner's dilemma is, also watch the movie A Beautiful Mind (trailer: ) about the creator of the Nash equilibrium (the ideal outcome of the prisoner's dilemma for everyone involved) if you want to feel mildly intellectual but also don't want to study (even though this movie largely fictionalises Nash' life, it's still entertaining)\] - Situations in which everyone would be better off by scaling back their pursuit of self-interest are known as prisoner's dilemmas - \[SL uses the classic prisoner's dilemma in his book to explain what it entails (actual prisoners being forced to either remain silent or confess to a crime), however I'm going to try to give it an ethical spin, so the table underneath **isn't in SL but is still a prisoner's dilemma**\] Bob ---- -------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- Al Goes for a decent life Goes for a fabulous life Goes for a decent life 7; 7 3; 9 Goes for a fabulous life 9; 3 5; 5 - The prisoner's dilemma isn't just some interesting thought experiment, it's how it goes in real life, there are countless of cases in which the rational pursuit of self-interest \[aiming for the 9 instead of the 7\] will lead people to refuse to cooperate with each another, even though this leaves everyone much worse off \[both giving life a 5 instead of both giving life a 7\] C. Cooperation and the State of Nature -------------------------------------- - So why don't competitors cooperate? because it's too risky those who adopt 'strategies for suckers' \[aka being honest/not taking drugs etc.\] may be virtuous, but they are the ones who will be left behind if enough people are willing to do what it takes to ensure that they get ahead, then you've either got to join in the competition or be the sacrificial lamb - Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the founder of modern contractarianism, was especially concerned with 1 sort of prisoner's dilemma he invites his readers to imagine a situation in which there is no government, no central authority, no group with exclusive power to enforce its will on others = the state of nature the worst place you could ever be - In the state of nature people ruthlessly compete with each other for whatever goods are available, cooperation is a sham and trust is non-existent - \[Hobbes prisoner's dilemma; TABLE IS NOT IN SL; the numbers are, again, grades people would give their life\] Miriam ---- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------------- Ko Not maximizing self-interest Maximizing self-interest Not maximizing self-interest 7; 7 1; 9 Maximizing self-interest 9; 1 2; 2 - There is an escape from the state of nature and for that we need 2 things: - Beneficial rules that require cooperation and punish betrayal - The rules are the terms of the social contract, they require us to give up the freedom to do bad things to other people in exchange for giving up these freedoms, we gain the many advantages of cooperation it's rational to give up some of your freedom, provided that you stand a good chance of getting something even better in return - An enforcer who ensures that these rules are obeyed - The problem with agreements is that they can be broken and without a strong incentive to keep their promises, people in prisoner's dilemmas are going to break them what's needed is a powerful person (or group) whose threats give everyone excellent reason to keep their word D. The Advantages of Contractarianism ------------------------------------- 1. Contractarianism explains and justifies the content of the basic moral rules - Moral rules are the ones that are meant to govern social cooperation when trying to figure out which standards are genuinely moral ones, contractarians ask us to imagine a group of free, equal, and rational people who are seeking terms of cooperation that each could reasonably accept - John Rawls (1921-2002) had a specific test for determining the rules that the ideal social contractors would support - He has us envision contractors behind a veil of ignorance (an imaginary device that removes all knowledge of one's social, economic, and religious positions; one's personality traits; and other distinguishing features. It's designed to ensure that the important choices of social contractors are made fairly \[but they do have certain basic human needs and wants\]) the idea is to put everyone on an equal footing, so that the choices they make are completely fair - When placed behind a veil of ignorance what social rules will rational people select? 2. It can explain the objectivity of morality - According to contractarianism morality doesn't come from God, nor from human opinion morality is a set of rules that would be agreed to by people who are very like us, only more rational and wholly free, and who are selecting terms of cooperation that will benefit each and everyone one of them - Contractarians don't have to picture moral rules as eternally true moral rules are the outcomes of rational choice, tailored to the specifics of human nature and the typical situations that humans find themselves in 3. It explains why it is sometimes acceptable to break the moral rules - Moral rules are designed for cooperative living when cooperation collapses, the entire point of morality disappears - Don't do bad stuff as long as others aren't doing it either if others are pursuing their self-interest you are allowed to do so as well E. The Role of Consent ---------------------- - Have we actually promised to live up to any social contract? It seems that we aren't really parties to any contract, and so are not bound to obey its rules - Contractarians would be in deep trouble if it claimed that our moral and legal duties applied only to those who agreed to accept them but contractarianism doesn't make any claim we haven't actually consented, but we *would* agree to it if we were all free and rational and seeking terms of mutually beneficial cooperation - Contractarianism isn't a simple recipe to do whatever your society says, rather, it provides a way to evaluate society's actual rules, by seeing how close (or far) they are to the ideal social code that would be adopted if we were freer, more equal, and more rational than we are F. Disagreement among the Contractors ------------------------------------- - If the social contract theory is correct, then the moral rules are those that free, equal and rational people would agree to live by but what happens if such people disagree with one another? - Rawls solved this problem by making every contractor a clone of every other behind the veil of ignorance, all your distinguishing features go away - Hobbes and other contractarians won't stand for that they insist that the moral rules are those that we, situated as we are, would rationally agree to, provided of course that others would agree to live by them as well - Both Rawls and Hobbes have a point, but there isn't a clear answer as to which one of them is correct - We also don't know how much disagreement there will be - Answers to these questions will make a big difference in deciding on the specific moral rules that a SCT favours but there is no shortcut to the answers, to get them, contractarians must defend their own specific version of the theory against competing versions Chapter 10: Virtue Ethics ========================= - Virtue ethics is not a single theory, but rather a family of theories it's a normative ethical theory that says an action is morally right just because it would be done by a virtuous person acting in character - Aristotle's *Nicomachean Ethics* has had the greatest influence in this tradition and remains a primary inspiration for most who work in it A. The Standard of Right Action ------------------------------- - A virtuous person is a moral exemplar someone who sets a fine example and serves as a role model for the rest of us - Virtue ethics is a form of ethical pluralism the view that there are at least 2, and possibly more, fundamental moral rules - When these moral rules conflict we should always follow the lead of a morally virtuous person B. Moral Complexity ------------------- - Virtue ethicists reject the idea that there is a any simple formula for determining how to act when it comes to morality, we must be content with general principles that allow exceptions strict obedience to rules is bound to lead us into error C. Moral Understanding ---------------------- - Moral understanding is not just a matter of knowing a bunch of moral facts moral understanding is a species of practical wisdom, it does require an understanding of certain facts, but it is so much more than that - Moral virtues require a combination of intellectual and emotional maturity D. The Nature of Virtue ----------------------- - Virtue: an admirable character trait that enables its possessor to achieve what is good not a habit or a tendency some people have virtuous habits, but they like the virtue because they don't really understand why it's appropriate to act this way - Someone who is virtuous has different perceptions, thoughts and motives than those who are not virtuous they see what's important, know what is right and why it is right, and want to do things because they are right - A virtuous person who understands the right thing to do will also be strongly motivated to do it, without regret or reluctance, for all the right reasons this is what distinguishes the truly virtuous from the merely continent (those who can keep it together, manage to do the right thing, but with little or no pleasure, and only by suppressing very strong contrary desires) E. Does Virtue Ethics Offer Adequate Moral Guidance? ---------------------------------------------------- - Moral philosophers sometimes accuse virtue ethics of failing to provide enough help in solving moral puzzles when trying to figure out how to behave, we'd like to have something more than just 'do what a virtuous person would do' but virtue ethics can provide more advice: it will tell us to act according to a large number of moral rules, each based on doing what is virtuous or avoiding what is vicious (possessed of many vices) - What happens when virtue rules conflict with one another? Do what a virtuous person would do, but what is that? Once you appreciate which virtues and vices are involved in the situation, it is up to you to sort out how to balance them against one another - Virtue ethicists believe that expectations of a clear ethical rule are implausible and far too demanding they deny that ethics is meant to provide us with a precise rule or mechanical decision procedure that can crank out the right answer for each morally complex case F. Who Are the Moral Role Models? --------------------------------- - Who are moral exemplars? Difficult question, we pick our role models in large part by seeing how well they live up to our pre-existing beliefs about what is right and wrong - People can be truly virtuous even if we don't realize that they are when we fail to choose the right role models, this is often explained by our own failure of virtue - We become more insightful in selecting moral exemplars only by becoming more wiser in general moral education is a lifelong affair, and we are never fully wise so we may indeed be off target in selecting our role models G. Conflict and Contradiction ----------------------------- - Contradictions (a claim that is said to be both true and false at the same time) are a fatal flaw in any theory for instance, if an action is said to be both right and wrong at the same time, then it is true that it is right and false that it is right - The problem: if there are many virtuous people, then what happens if they disagree about what to do in a given situation there are a few ways out of this problem: - Insist that there is really only a single truly virtuous person, and so the differences that cause the contradictions would disappear - Insist that every virtuous person, acting in character, would do exactly the same thing in every situation - Slightly modify the virtue ethical view of right action, assuming that virtuous people, acting in character, will sometimes do different things in the same situation, we should say the following: 1. An act in a given situation is morally *required* just because *all* virtuous people, acting in character, would perform it 2. An act in a given situation is morally *permitted* just because *some but not all* virtuous people, acting in character, would perform it 3. An act in a given situation is morally *forbidden* just because *no* virtuous person would perform it H. The Priority Problem ----------------------- - How do we get a handle on the nature of virtue? 1. We first get clear about our duty 2. Then define a virtue as a character trait that reliably moves us to do our duty for the right reasons - Virtue ethicists reject this strategy they deny that we can know our duty before knowing how virtuous people characteristically behave virtue has a kind of priority over duty we must know what virtue is, and how the virtuous would behave, before knowing what we must do - The issue is about which concept is morally fundamental: virtue or right action - Are people virtuous because they perform the right actions? - Are actions right because virtuous people perform them? virtue ethics chooses this one Chapter 11: Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care ================================================== - The most prominent authors and supporters of the ethical theories that we have considered so far have 1 thing in common: they are all men most of them lived in societies that systematically discriminated against women - There are 2 ways in which philosophers have shortchanged the lives of women: 1. Making false and damaging claims about them 2. Ignoring female experiences and perspectives - feminist ethics seeks to remedy both of these flaws A. The Elements of Feminist Ethics ---------------------------------- - Feminist ethics is not a single theory, but rather a general approach to ethics that is defined by 4 central claims 1. Women are the moral equals of men views that justify the subordination of women or downplay their interests are thus mistaken on that account 2. The experiences of women deserve respect and are vital to a full and accurate understanding of morality to the extend that philosophers ignore such experiences, their theories are bound to be incomplete, and likely to be biased and inaccurate 3. Traits that have traditionally been associated with women are at least as morally important as traditionally masculine traits 4. Traditionally feminine ways of moral reasoning are often superior to traditionally masculine ways of reasoning - 2 cautionary notes: 1. No one believes that every woman is compassionate and caring, or that every man is aggressive and competitive generalizations that hold only to some extent, and allow for many exceptions 2. Traditionally masculine/feminine traits are just that features that our cultures have long associated with men and women no claim that such traits are innate - The major moral theories we have discussed thus far are not designed with home and family life in mind but since so many of our most important moments are spent with those we love, and since so many moral choices are made within the context of those relationships, why not imagine what an ethic would look like that took these as its starting points? many feminists point to (especially a mother's) care as the model of moral relations and the basis of ethics *ethic of care* B. The Ethics of Care --------------------- - We can better understand an ethics of care by first seeing what it is *not* - Ethical egoism care ethics does not insist that we always look out for number 1 - No supreme importance on justice (Kantianism) matters of justice are not entirely absent from parent-child relations, but they are certainly not the primary focus here - Authors of moral law are indifferent to the needs of others, willing to make sacrifices for them only if there is a reasonable chance of being compensated in return (contractarianism) good parents don't see it that way - Impartial benevolence (utilitarianism) loving parents are much more concerned about their own children than about other people's kids a good mother will demonstrate partiality toward her children, will give them more care and love than she does anyone else's children C. The Importance of Emotions ----------------------------- - Care is an emotion, or a network of reinforcing emotions that involve some combination of sympathy, empathy, sensitivity, and love \[ important emotion\] - \[Other theories and emotions:\] - Utilitarians don't place much importance on the emotions in knowing what's right and wrong calculating amounts of happiness and misery isn't an emotional task - Kant was quite dismissive of the emotions, claiming that reason alone could both tell us where our duty lay and get us to do it he was surely right in thinking that our emotions can't go unchecked we need an ethic of care, and not just care itself feminist philosophers argue that care and its associated emotions are central to moral motivation and moral discovery, even if they aren't the whole story - Those who defend and ethics of care sometimes see themselves as working within a virtue ethics tradition makes sense, given the emphasis not only on *what* we do, but on *how* we do it D. Against Unification ---------------------- - Most traditional ethical theories offer us one supreme moral rule (one that is both absolute and fundamental) that determines the morality of all actions along with the ethic of prima facie duties and virtue ethics, care ethics rejects this picture - There is no surefire test for knowing what morality demands of us, morality is complicated and messy - According to feminist philosophers there is often a right thing to do, but that we can't read off a recommendation from some simple rule we have to appreciate the different sources of our moral duties and these stem primarily from relationships we have with other people and they can conflict with one another when they do, it's very hard to know what to do part of gaining moral maturity is recognizing this, facing life's difficult choices, and not pretending that overly simple answers will solve our problems E. Partiality and Concreteness ------------------------------ - Many philosophers have been very attracted to the idea of a supreme moral rule, partly because of the fact that how more general and abstract the rule, the less likely it is to include bias why is this so important? Traditional answer: it gives us a way to ensure impartiality we must think of everyone as moral equals, and that means giving each person equal weight when we determine what is right and wrong - Feminist response: it is right that we give priority to those we care about, it is good to be partial to our loved ones - Feminist ethicists resist the push to abstraction that we see so strongly in philosophy moral reasoning should not be centred on a single, very general rule, but rather should be guided by a more complicated understanding of the specifics of situations F. Downplaying Rights --------------------- - Feminists often argue that moral theories have placed too much emphasis on justice demanding rights, insisting that others honour our claims, and making sure we get what we are entitled to ways of asserting our independence from one another, rather than our connectedness - Imagine that we instead emphasized our responsibilities to one another, based on the model of a caring parent toward their children society would be seen not as a venue for the pursuit of rational self-interest, but rather as a stage for cooperation where we took responsibility for one another, and especially for the most vulnerable among us - The emphasis on rights \[by traditional ethicists I'm guessing\] has often meant giving priority to our being free from coercion and unwanted interference many feminists have launched pointed criticisms of such priorities they argue that rights tend to place us in opposition to others, creating a barrier beyond which on one may pass without permission - We should emphasize our responsibilities to others, rather than our rights against them G. Challenges for Feminist Ethics --------------------------------- - Feminist ethics is an approach to morality, rather than a single unified theory with specific claims that all feminists endorse result: a presentation of this family of views must settle for highlighting general lines of thought, rather than particular arguments and views that all feminists will accept - The most important challenges feminist ethicists currently deal with: 1. The feminist ethics of care threatens to restrict the scope of the moral community too greatly 2. The role of emotions in helping us to know the right thing to do, and in moving us to do it, needs further exploration 3. Downgrading impartiality has its costs - It is an important corrective for prejudice and bias 4. Rejecting any supreme moral rule leaves it hard to know how to solve moral conflicts 5. While cooperation is often an excellent thing, we also need to have strategies for dealing with uncooperative people or governments 6. While justice and rights are not the whole of morality, they are nonetheless a very important part of it