MORAL

PHILOSOPHY
When an ethical law of the form, ‘Thou shalt . . .’, is laid
down, one’s first thought is, ‘And what if I do not do it?’

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, # 6.422

 Metaethics
concerned with What does good mean?
“the very nature
of ethics and its Are there values independent of
humans/valuers?
basic concepts.”
Metaethical Positions:

• Relativism
• Anti – realism
• Cognitivism
• Non-cognitivism
• Subjectivism

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “3.20. Metaethics/normative ethics”, p. 147

ROBIN HOOD
ETHICAL & CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Do we need another line to determine
Is this line straight?
whether it is straight or not?

The decision on the straightness of this line does not depend on an other
line. Which line is longer?

Is this line long?

The decision on the longness of this line depends on the size of the other line.
Relative : not absolute; connected to or depending on
something else
MORAL RELATIVISM

Moral Relativism
Cultural moral relativism :
The culture is the final arbiter of morality

Moral nihilism:
All moral statements are meaningless

Moral subjectivism:
the individual is the final arbiter of morality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xubKqMY2tPg

Litch, Mary M. Philosophy Through Film, New York: Routledge, 2010, p. 159.
ETHICAL & CULTURAL RELATIVISM

A moral relativist is someone that rejects that moral rules are

absolute and universal. Moral rules do not apply to all persons, in
all places and at all times.

“Morality changes and evolves over time and place, and that
moral codes appropriate for one set of circumstances may not be
appropriate for another.”

If morality is relevant, what do our moral decisions depends

on?
• particular cultures, histories, species, social groups, religious
beliefs, individuals

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “2.14 Relativism”, pp. 89

DIFFERENT CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT MORAL CODES

What is right for Turkish people might not be right for British
people.
Compulsory military service
Living together without legal/ religous marriage bound

What is acceptable for a Muslim might not be acceptable for a

Christian.
Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is a Prophet.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.17

DIFFERENT CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT MORAL CODES

An explorer reported that in Eskimo culture old

people were left out in the snow to die when they
became feeble, when they could no longer
contribute to the family.

Does this mean that they have less respect to human life?

KAHOOT

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.17

ETHICAL & CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Cultural relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity and

universality of moral truth.

v Different societies/cultures have different moral codes

v The moral code of a society determines what is right within that
society.
v. There is no “universal truth” in ethics.
vThe moral code of our own society has no special status.
v We should be tolerant towards the practices of other cultures.
“. . . the norms of a culture reign supreme within the bound of the culture itself.”

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p. 19

ETHICAL & CULTURAL RELATIVISM

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT
1. The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide
2. Americans believe infanticide is immoral
∴ Infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong.
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
∴ There is no objective “truth” in morality.
From a logical point of view: the conclusion does not follow from
the premise : even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be
false.This does not mean that the conclusion is false.
Whenever two cultures disagree this does not necessitates that there is
no objective truth in that subject. (For example, “earth is flat”)

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.20 -21

 CONSEQUENCES OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM
We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to
our own.
Advantage: Help us to accept cultural differences. More tolerance.
Disadvantage: Preclude us from criticising practices like repressing
political dissent.
We could decide whether our actions are right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our society.
Advantage: Very simple to determine what is right and wrong.
Disadvantage: Is our society’s moral code perfect? Is it right?
The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
What about the social changes? Can we replace a custom with a new way
of doing? What if we want to change is a standard of that society?

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p. 21 -23

ETHICAL & CULTURAL RELATIVISM
How much cultures really differ in their views of right and wrong?
Think of a culture that believes that it is wrong to eat cows no mather
how poor they are, no matter they have no other food suply.

It seems that they have a different value set than we do, or not?

What do they value? A cow? Why?

Consider that they believe after death the souls do not vanish but
continue to live in the body of a cow.

If you belive that a cow carries the soul of your grandmother. Will you
eat it?

The difference here is not the values but the belief.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.24

 Is relativism amoral?

Does relativism totally abandon morality?

Here is an argument that claims so. It states that, if relativism is true:
1. There is more than one set of moral principles & none of them are
objectively superior to each other,
2. If none of them are objectively superior to each other, then we cannot
say that some moral values are better or worse than others,
3. Morality is not possible without judgements of better or worse
∴ Relativism makes morality impossible

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “2.14 Relativism”, p. 90.

Is relativism amoral?
This argument begs the question against relativism.
Begging the question: a logical fallacy that the premise depends on
the truth of the very matter in question.

2nd Premise:
If none of them are objectively superior to each other, then we cannot
say that some moral values are better or worse than others.
Relativists do not deny that people can make moral judgments, right
or wrong, better or worse. They could do this within a society. What
they must be aware of is that these are not universal, objective
standards.
“only objective judgements carry any weight” is the question at hand so
cannot be used as a premise.

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “2.14 Relativism”, p. 90.

Is relativism amoral?

“Unless the ethical life, or (. . .) morality, can be justified by philosophy,

we shall be open to relativism, amoralism, and disorder. As they often
put it: when an amoralist calls ethical considerations into doubt, and
suggests that there is no reason to follow the requirements of morality,
what can we say to him?”
Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, p.22.

An amoralist is a person who is indifferent to moral considerations.

Is relativism amoral?

Unless the ethical life, or (. . .) morality, can be

Bernard Williams
justified by philosophy, we shall be open to (1929-2003)
relativism, amoralism, and disorder. As they often
put it: when an amoralist calls ethical considerations
into doubt, and suggests that there is no reason to
follow the requirements of morality, what can we
say to him?

Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, p.22.

SUBJECTIVISM

The godfather of subjectivism is David Hume (1711-1776).

He argued that rationality is not capable of producing reasons for
action by itself.

“’Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole

world to the scratching of my finger.”
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II, Part iii, § 3, p.463

“destruction of the world” and “scratching one’s finger” are alike

for reason. Reason alone cannot prefer one of them.
“. . . reason alone can never produce any action, . . . “
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II, Part iii, § 3
SUBJECTIVISM

In order to prefer something to another

we must feel differently about them.
Rationality cannot be the source of any
feelings . Rationality is about truth and
falsity.

Julian Baggini &Peter Fosl, “2.15 Subjectivism”, pp.91-94

 SUBJECTIVISM
Reason cannot produce feeling by itself.
“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never
pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book II, Part iii, § 3, p.462

“Enquire then, first, where is that matter of fact, which we here call
crime; point it out; determine the time of its existence; describe its
essence or nature; explain the sense or faculty, to which it discovers
itself. It resides in the mind of the person, who is ungrateful. He must,
therefore, feel it, and be conscious of it. But nothing is there, except the
passion of ill-will or absolute indifference.“
David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, p.84.
•
SUBJECTIVISM
What will be our conclusion from such an assertion by Hume?

Are there moral facts , facts like walls, trees, windows? Are values and facts
distinct things? Does this mean that there is no objective basis of ethics?

Some possibilities are:

• There are moral facts.

• There are no moral facts, values only express our subjective feelings

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.41

ETHICAL JUDGMENTS DO NOT REFER TO MATTERS OF FACT

When it comes to the point that you accept the idea that ethical
judgments do not refer to matters of fact, you could either hold
that:
• they express nothing, i.e., they are nonsense (as Rudolf Carnap and Moritz
Schlick did)
• by a “Humean twist” state that they are expressions of sentiments, i.e., they
express emotions (as A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson did)
• more radically you could pass over the problem in silence (as Wittgenstein
seems to have done).
SUBJECTIVISM

“Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on
our feelings and nothing more.”

There is no “objective” right or wrong

• It is a fact that some people are homosexual.

• It is a fact that some people are heterosexual.
• But there is no such fact that one is good the other is bad.
• When someone says that heterosexuality is good. S/he is simply stating his/her feelings.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.33

 SUBJECTIVISM

Simple Subjectivism: “When a person says that

something is morally good or bad, this means
that he or she approves of that thing,
disapproves of it, and nothing more.”
• “ X is right.”
• “X is good.” “I approve of X”
• “ X ought to be done.”
• “ X is wrong.”
• “X is bad.” “I disapprove of X”
• “ X ought not to be done.”

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.34

 OBJECTIONS TO SIMPLE SUBJECTIVISM

It cannot account for disagreement:

Ali says : “X is morally acceptable.”
Ayşe says: “X is morally unacceptable”
Are they disagreeing?
According to simple subjectivism they are not disagreeing. They
are simply making a statement of their attitudes.
It implies that we are always right:
According to simple subjectivism if someone is honestly
representing his/her own feelings, his/her moral judgments will
always be correct.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.34-35

 COMMON VALUES

Most societies:
• Care for their young
• Value truth telling
• Prohibit murder
• Value respect for people

“. . . there are some rules that all societies must have in common,
because those rules are necessary for society to exist.”

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.26

 Ethical relativism: the position that there are
no objective or universally valid moral
principles; because all moral judgments are
simply a matter of human opinion.
• Subjective ethical relativism: the doctrine
Ethical doctrines that what is right and wrong is solely a
matter of each individual’s personal
and theories opinion.
• Conventional ethical relativism: the claim
that what is really right or wrong is relative
to each particular society.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 426-27

Table 5.1: Three Questions Concerning Moral Relativity and the
Answers of the Two Forms of Ethical Relativism

Forms of Are moral Are moral Are moral

ethical principles judgments judgments
relativism relative to relative to each relative to each
human individual’s society’s
opinion? opinion? opinion?
Subjective Yes Yes No
ethical
relativism
Conventional Yes No Yes
ethical
relativism

Lawhead, 7th edition,

 Ethical objectivism: the view that there
are universal and objectively valid moral
principles. Certain moral principles
apply to all people in all times, and they
are not based on the opinions of
individuals or cultures.
Ethical doctrines
and theories
Absolutism: the claim that not only are
moral principles objective, but they
cannot be overridden and there cannot
be any exceptions to them.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 427 & p. 443

Are there moral principles or truths that are objectively valid?

Is serving one's own self-interest the only moral duty?

Do the consequences of an action make it right or wrong?

Are actions right or wrong in themselves independently of their

consequences?

Is morality more concerned with the character of a virtuous person

than with rules of conduct?
 Trolley Problem 1
A runaway trolley is hurtling down the
tracks toward 5 people who will be killed
if it proceeds on its present course. The
driver can save these 5 by diverting the
trolley onto a different set of tracks, one
that has only 1 person on it, but if she
does this that person will be killed.

Question: Should she turn the trolley to

prevent 5 deaths at the cost of 1?
 Trolley Problem 2

Should you pull the switch

to prevent 5 deaths at the
cost of 1?
 Trolley Problem 3

Should you push to prevent 5

deaths at the cost of 1?
Trolley Problem 4

Should you switch to

prevent 5 deaths at the
cost of 1?
Solution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
How do we judge Consequentialism: the desirability or
undesirability of the action's
the moral rightness consequences.
or wrongness of an
• Utilitarianism: the theory that the right action is the
act? one that produces the greatest amount of happiness
for the greatest number of people.
• Ethical egoism: the theory that people ought always
to do only what is in their own self-interest.

Deontological ethics: the intrinsic moral

value of the act itself.

• Kantian ethics: the theory that we have absolute

moral duties that are determined by reason and that
are not affected by the consequences.

Lawhead; 5th edition, p. 427 & pp. 472-73.

Consequentialism
Any ethical theory that judges the moral rightness or wrongness of an act
according to the desirability or undesirability of the action’s consequences
• Also called teleological ethics
Consequentialist must answer the following questions:

What has intrinsic value?

• Something has intrinsic value if it is good or desirable in itself
• Something has instrumental value if its desirability is in terms of other ends, it achieves

Who should receive this value?

Consequentialism
Most consequentialist theories define intrinsic value in terms of pleasure or,
more broadly, happiness

Consequentialists argue that everything else that is good (even health) has only
instrumental value in helping to bring about happiness

Since happiness seems to have intrinsic value, the pursuit of it needs no other
justification

Most common form of consequentialism is utilitarianism

Lawhead, 6th edition, p.413
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism is in agreement with the egoist on the role of
consequences in ethics, but disagrees about the recipient of the value
• For the utilitarian, the proper recipient of that which has value is the
greatest number of people possible
• If happiness has value, then that value ought to be maximized
and distributed among as many people as possible
• Principle of utility: A morally right action is one that produces at
least as much good (utility) for all people affected by the action as
any alternative action that could be performed
 Table 5.2: Five Questions Concerning the Nature of Morality
Kinds of Are there Is serving Do the Are actions Is morality more
ethical moral one’s own consequences of right or concerned with
objectivism principles self-interest an action make it wrong in the character of a
or truths the only right or wrong? themselves, virtuous person
that are moral duty? independentl than with rules of
objectivel y of their conduct?
y valid? consequence
s?

Ethical egoism Yes Yes Yes, but only the No No

consequences
for the individual
performing the
action

Utilitarianism Yes No Yes No No

Lawhead, 7th edition,
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism defines a morally right action as one that produces as
much good (utility) for all people affected by the action as any
alternative action that could performed. This is the principle of utility.

Lawhead, 5th edition, p.473.

UTILITARIANISM
The utilitarianism theory falls under the heading of ethical
objectivism. Utilitarians believe that there is a universal, objective
moral principle that everyone ought to follow the principle of utility.
It seems like that utilitarianism is a form of relativism since the
utilitarian does not hold that any given action is absolutely right or
wrong in itself.
But they hold that there is an objective moral principle that requires
different actions in different situations.

Lawhead, 5th editıon, pp. 480-81

 UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism was formulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and his successor
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Bentham stated that, morality is not about:
• Pleasing God
• Being faithful to abstract rules
Morality is about producing the most happiness.

Utilitarianism rejects all tradition of viewing human nature as a struggle between

reason and desire. Its view of human nature is more akin to the Humean account.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.97-98

UTILITARIANISM
Hume rejects the idea of identification of human beings with reason and thinks
that it is our desires and passions that motivate our behavior.

The Principle of Utility requires, in all circumstances, to produce the most

happiness.

The Principle of Utility was a revolutionary idea because it allows us to do

whatever is necessary to promote happiness.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.97-98

 UTILITARIANISM
Jeremy Bentham says:
“Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what
we ought to do, as well as to determine what we
shall do. . . . They govern us in all we do, in all we
say, in all we think: every effort we can make to
throw off our subjection will serve but to
demonstrate and confirm it.”
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
UTILITARIANISM
What actions are right?
• The actions that produce the most ‘good’ are right.
What is good?
• For a utilitarian it is ‘happiness’
What is happiness?
• Happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.110

 UTILITARIANISM
John Stuart Mill states that:
““greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness;
wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of
happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of
pain;”
Utilitarianism, Chapter II,
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism can be summarized as:
1)Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their
consequences.
2)In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of
happiness or unhappiness that is created.
3)Each person’s happiness counts equally.

An action is right insofar as it tends to create the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.

James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, p.109

UTILITARIANISM
The problem of impartiality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4GAQtGtd_0
UTILITARIANISM

For a utilitarian, to choose between alternative actions is to

calculate the consequences of action of how much overall
happiness each one is going to produce.

For Bentham pleasures differ only in quantity, various

dimensions, like intensity, duration, likelihood of
reoccurrence would make it possible to measure the quantity
of pleasure an action produces.

It is not always easy to calculate the consequences of actions.

How we are to measure the happiness that results?

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 125-7

UTILITARIANISM
For Bentham there is no sensible meaning to the notion of higher or lower pleasures.
Pleasures can differ only in their quantity.
Bentham's "hedonic calculus"
•Intensity: how strong is the pleasure?
•Duration: how long will the pleasure last?
•Certainty or uncertainty : how likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
•Propinquity or Remoteness: how soon will the pleasure will occur?
•Fecundity: how likely is it that the proposed action will produce more sensations of the
same kind (either pleasure or pain)
•Purity: will the sensations be followed by sensations of the opposite kind?
•Extent: how many other people will be affected?

Lawhead, 5th edition, p.475.

UTILITARIANISM

Bentham was criticised that his view suggests that as long as

they produce the same quantity of pleasure every action
will be equally good.
(Poetry vs. A party game (pushpin))
 UTILITARIANISM
John Stuart Mill’s position by stating that there are higher and lower
pleasures, and we should aim to maximize the higher ones, seems more
defendable.
Mill criticizes Bentham for having too limited view of human nature.
Human beings, are more than pleasure seeking organisms. In seeking
pleasure, they also seek to develop their "higher faculties" and to
become "well- developed human beings."

Mill says that: “Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied!”

Utilitarianism

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 127-8 & Lawhead, 5th edition, p. 479-80.
UTILITARIANISM
For Mill, higher pleasures are intellectual and spiritual pleasures (literary or artistic
enjoyment) and the lower pleasures are physical pleasures . If people experience both
lower and higher pleasures and if they need to choose between them, they will always
choose the higher ones.
Another fundamental question would be whether happiness is the highest value.

If you had the chance of being plugged in for life with the prospect of endless pleasure,
would you take it?

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 127-8

The Drowning Child
Your route to work takes you past a shallow pond. One morning
you notice that a small child has fallen in and appears to be in
difficulty in the water. The child is crying in distress and it
seems is at risk of drowning. You are tall and strong, so you can
easily wade in and pull the child out. However, although you'll
come to no physical harm if you rescue the child, you will get
your clothes wet and muddy, which means you'll have to go
home to change, and likely you'll be late for work.
In this situation, do you have a moral obligation to rescue the
child?

I have a moral obligation to rescue the child.

I have no moral obligation to rescue the child.

The Drowning Child
Okay, now suppose that there are other people walking
past who would equally be able to rescue the child but are
not doing so. Does the fact that they are not doing what
ought to be done mean that you're no longer obligated to
save the child?

It makes no difference. I still have a moral obligation to save the child.

It makes a difference. I'm no longer obligated to save the child.

The Drowning Child
A Degree of Uncertainty
Let's imagine that there is some uncertainty attached to the situation.
You know you're not going to come to any harm if you attempt the
rescue, but you can't be sure that your efforts will make any difference
to how things turn out. This is partly for the counterfactual reason that
if you don't intervene, then it is possible that somebody else will do so,
thereby bringing about the same result (i.e., the rescue of the child
from the pond); and it is partly because it is possible that by the time
you reach the child, it will already be too late.
It is important to be clear about the precise situation here. You
have good reason to suppose that your intervention will bring about a
better outcome than would otherwise be the case, but you can't be sure
about it. The question is - does this element of uncertainty mean you're
no longer obliged to go ahead with the rescue attempt?

I am still morally obliged to attempt the rescue

This element of uncertainty means I'm not morally obliged to attempt the rescue
The Drowning Child
The Old Bike
Now consider another variation on the basic scenario. It so
happens that you cycle to work, and the pond is located in a
park where you know a gang of bicycle thieves operates. You
don't have time to lock up your bike, and you know that if you
leave it, even briefly, to rescue the child, there's a good
chance that it'll be stolen. It's a battered old bike, it doesn't
hold any particular sentimental value to you, and you can
easily replace it. Does the possibility your bike will be stolen
while you're saving the child mean you're no longer obliged to
go ahead with the rescue?

It makes no difference that my bike might be stolen, I still have a moral

obligation to save the child.
It makes a difference that my bike might be stolen. I'm no longer
obligated to save the child.