Dowling College
PHL 042A Ethics Spring 2003
Dr Christian
Perring
Course Notes
Feb 4, 2003
Plato: The Ring
of Gyges
Glaucon praises the
unjust life. Why?
Glaucon discusses
why people have laws. What is his
explanation?
Glaucon is using his
story of the Ring of Gyges to argue that if people could get away with crimes,
then they would be criminals.
His example makes us
think about whether the Ring would make us happy, or whether it would just make
our lives more complicated and troubled.
We would also have to struggle with fears and guilt.
Imagine 2 people, a
good person and bad person. The good
person gets none of the benefits of being good – reputation, friends, etc, and
the bad person has none of the costs of being bad – reputation, getting
caught. It leads us to think whether a
bad person could be happy.
(Who counts as a bad
person – Tony Soprano? He seems a
complex character, who is capable of love and care. But do his good qualities redeem his terrible actions?)
Glaucon is asking
who would be happier, the good or bad person – but is that relevant to whether
it is right to be good? Maybe it is
wrong to suppose that being good should make one happy.
Glaucon thinks it is
animal instinct to be selfish.
Epicurus: he recommends a life of pleasure.
Why does he
recommend the study of philosophy? He
thinks that it is necessary in order to lead a pleasurable life.
We should not worry
about death, because after death, we have no more sensation. There is no afterlife.
The wise man tries
not to worry about anything.
Different kinds of
desires:
Natural, some
necessary
Vain
Our main motivation
is to avoid pain and fear. Cravings are
a kind of pain, and we should avoid them.
He is NOT saying we should satisfy all our pleasures and cravings, but
rather that we should cultivate the right desires.
His view is that a
life of pleasure is best obtained by sober reasoning, searching out the motives
for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions.
What is
prudence? Taking the long view, being
cautious in your actions.
Being virtuous is
important for pleasure. This will make
you happy.
You should be
virtuous because it will make you happy.
So Glaucon and
Epicurus completely disagree about what makes people happy. But they seem to agree that what is
important in life is being happy.
February 6, 2003
Adam Smith:
Smith starts out by
explaining that there are limits to our knowledge of other people's
feelings. We cannot directly know what
it is like for someone else to experience something. But we can imagine what it would be like for us if we were in
similar circumstances and this gives us some idea what the other person is
going through. Still, our understanding
is limited by the range of experiences we have had. (A person blind from birth probably cannot imagine what it is
like to see colors.)
Smith argues that
even if we are selfish, we can have reasons to care about the welfare of other people,
because if they suffer, we may feel bad out of feelings of compassion. If someone else who we care for is
suffering, then we may well experience sympathetic sensations. Thus our own happiness will depend on the
happiness of other people.
This is similar to
Epicurus, who says that the best life is one that is full of pleasure, and the
best way to lead a life of pleasure is to lead a life of virtue.
Both seem to be
egoists – they say it is best to care about one’s own welfare of pleasure.
He distinguishes Ethical
Egoism from Psychological Egoism
Psychological Egoism
is an empirical claim about human nature.
People only care about themselves.
It does not take any stance about whether that is right or wrong.
Ethical Egoism: it
is morally right to only care about oneself.
Altruism is an ethical mistake.
You have no ethical obligation to help others.
“Common-sense
morality” tells us we should help those in need. This morality is composed of truths that (most) people who are
sufficiently mature will all agree to.
For example, common sense morality tells us it is morally wrong to kick
a 2-year-old child for fun.
Rachels claims that
it is part of common-sense morality that it is better to give money to famine
relief rather than go to the movies.
But not everyone will agree this is part of common sense. Maybe he would have done better with a
different example.
He sets out 3
arguments against ethical egoism. It is
important to understand these 3 arguments and his criticisms of them.
Rachels does a good
job at setting out the issues and making them clear.
February 12
Rand
Is acting in one’s own interest always selfish?
n according to her?
n According to common sense morality? No, certainly not when you are not hurting anyone else. What we normally mean by selfishness is when you put your own interests above other people’s and they suffer as a result.
n According to Christianity? We can distinguish between simply avoiding sin and acting above and beyond the call of duty, which is like being a saint.
Her argument seems to be that altruism demands total self-sacrifice, and that is unjust. Her solution is to say people can be selfish.
She insists that we must act for our rational self-interest. You should not act in ways that are not good for you – for example, smoking cigarettes. Morality is not just about doing whatever you feel like.
She does not give any strong arguments for her views, and her characterization of altruism is ridiculous.
Dawkins:
All life on earth is interconnected
The earth is one large ecosystem. All species are interconnected.
So Dawkins thinks he can explain animal behavior in terms of genes promoting their success.
This is especially controversial when applied to humans.
The underlying assumption is that human behavior can be explained just like the behavior of any other animal.
This works well for some forms of human behavior, such as mating rituals (Long Island bars on a Friday night).
People object to this sort of explanation being applied to all human behavior because it says that humans are nothing more than animals – we are not special. It also seems to ignore “free will.” Can’t humans rise above their animal instincts? Dawkins seems to deny free will—he says we are just selfish genetic machines.
Aristotle's
Ethics
Acting for an
end—goal, or purpose, or aim
What are you in
college?
Because you want to
graduate.
Why?
So you can get a
better life.
Why?
To be happy?
Why?
So not to be
unhappy.
Why?
It is more
pleasurable.
In the end, we
discover an “ultimate end” or final goal.
The ultimate goal is to be happy.
There may just one
ultimate end, or there may be more than one.
Happiness is the
main ultimate end that people describe, but there may be others, eg.
Fashionableness or coolness. For the
good of the state.
Everyone agrees that
the ultimate end is to achieve happiness, and to live well.
For Aristotle,
happiness is not just a feeling or sensation.
Happiness is more
like satisfaction at a well lived life.
The masses, the
least refined: happiness is pleasure.
Pleasure is a feeling. The
masses would like to live like beasts.
Men of refinement
with a practical turn seek honor.
Recognition from others of one’s status.
The best kind of
life is one of contemplation, studying philosophy.
The best way to live
life is to live as we were intended to by nature. We should live according to our function.
What is the function
of humans?
He is looking for
what is special about humans, that makes us different from other animals and
life forms. This is a life of
reason.
The good of man is
exercise of his faculties in accordance with excellence or virtue. To live excellently or virtuously.
We need to become
virtuous, to have a virtuous character.
Living well is
pleasant, it gives pleasure. In order
to live well, we need external goods, which include some money and wealth,
friends, family, good birth.
We need to form the
right habits. Training oneself –
becoming a good person. Being a good
person takes practice though habit.
Virtue is mean
between too much and too little.
Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean.
To live a good life
is about developing a good character.
Immanuel Kant
Major work was the Critique
of Pure Reason
This extract is from
the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
Good is based on the
idea of a good will.
The will is what we
intend.
To act with good
will is to act with an intention to do good.
He is criticizing
Aristotle.
For Aristotle, being
good means being virtuous, which is having a good character.
E.g. being
courageous, honest, noble, caring, wise.
Kant says that being
courageous might not be good if one is acting with the wrong intentions.
Kant says that what
is important is to act with the right intentions, or a “good will.”
He is saying that we
should not judge the rightness of an act by its consequences. He would completely disagree with the idea
that the ends justify the means.
For an act to be
good, you have to be doing it for the right reasons.
Kant believes there
are moral laws. He thinks that morality
could not count as morality unless it was for the form of universal laws.
Morality should
impartial, not dependent on who the agent is or what the circumstances
are.
Hypothetical
imperatives.
Imperative : “you must do X”
Hypothetical part : “if you want to …”
Categorical imperative is unconditional: “You must do X”
There is only one categorical imperative:
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.”
Morality must be rational.
Rationality includes morality.
Morality is NOT about feelings or sentiments. The only right motivations for moral action are rational ones,
not sentimental.
First example: is it morally permissible to kill oneself?
Would it be rational to kill oneself?
The maxim you act by has to be one that could be a universal law.
But morality is about improving life, and this would contradict a maxim
that approved of destroying life. So
there would be a contradiction.
If you reasoning leads you to contradict yourself, then it is
irrational.
So suicide is wrong.
Second example:
You need money, and the only way to get it is by promising to return
the loan.
Your maxim would be to borrow money with a promise to repay it,
although you know you will be unable to do so.
If this were a universal law, it would say that everyone could borrow
money when they needed it, even if they knew they would not be able to repay
it.
If that happened, then a promise would cease to mean anything. A promise would be impossible. This conflicts with the initial assumption
that promising is possible. So we have
a contradiction. So this act is
immoral.
Third example. You have a
natural talent. E.g. being a
carpenter. But you want just to laze
around and do nothing, and you have the resources to do so. Would it be right to be lazy?
The maxim you would act with would be: I have a lazy life and do not
use my natural talents.
What happens if this maxim was universal?
Kant says that when we look at the universal, we get a
contradiction. It seems that nothing
would ever get done, and society would be impossible.
We discover our duties through considering what is rational. Rationality is strong enough that it will
provide answers.
Mill
For morality, what is important are the consequences of our actions,
NOT the intentions.
Morality is largely based on emotions, we intuitively know that what is
right is what makes people happy.
His view is called Utilitarianism.
Utility is what is good for society, and utility is measured by
happiness.
The principle of utility is the Greatest Happiness Principle.
Right actions are those that maximize the total happiness of society as
a whole in the long run.
Rationality is involved in morality in working out what the best action
is, through a calculation of effects.
For Utilitarianism, every choice involves detailed calculations of what
is going to generate the most happiness.
One obvious for this: how do we measure happiness? It is very hard to find an objective measure
of happiness. It is a very “fuzzy”
concept.
Epicurus said the most important thing in life is pleasure. He seemed to mean personal pleasure.
Utilitarians are talking about the total happiness of society, not just
one person.
Utilitarianism seems to demand a great deal of self-sacrifice. You happiness does count, but only as one
member of society.
Mill thought that we can differentiate between quantity and quality of
happiness. Some pleasures are worth
more than others.
High culture versus animal pleasures.
Junk TV is like an animal pleasure – entirely unsophisticated.
High class TV: ER, Friends, NYPD Blue
BBC tv shows, Masterpiece Theatre.
People who have been exposed to both kinds of pleasures will agree that
it is better to have the higher ones.
Nietzsche
He often provides a
genealogy
It is the study of
the roots of ideas.
Family
Genealogy—family tree.
N gave us genealogy
of morals. How did morality come to be
as it is?
He show much
impatience with philosophers.
Philosophers have tried to justify morality – prove their ideas are
right. He dismisses their
attempts.
N was famous for his
aphorisms.
He distinguishes two
main kinds of morality.
Master morality
Slave morality –
Christianity, Judaic morals, Utilitarianism, Kant’s ethics
He compares these
two kinds of morality. He normally
expressed disgust at slave morality. He
often expresses admiration for master morality.
Slave morality is
the morality of the downtrodden masses.
All mass-morality advocating the needs of the needy and powerless are
the same. Slave morality is predominant
in western society.
“Good” and “Evil”
Master morality
concerns itself with strength and honor.
It admires power and nobility.
There’s a strong emphasis on the power of the individual to create his
own values. The power help others out
of generosity, not pity.
Beyond good and
evil.
N is much warmer in
his language to master morality. He is
disgusted by slave morality.
N never says that
master-morality is the true morality, nor than slave morality is wrong.
N tends to think
that truth is never absolute, but is more perspectival.
AJ Ayer
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/misc/ryle/s09AJAyer.jpg
Defender of “Logical
Positivism”
If a sentence cannot
be tested for its truth, then it has no meaning.
Moral statements do
not really mean anything.
Emotivism: moral
statements simply express emotions.
Meaning statements
have to make verifiable claims about the world.
Moral statements are
not verifiable.
Four classes of
ethical statements:
The central idea is
that only the last kind are really philosophical.
In his view,
philosophy should simply concern itself with analyzing the meanings of
words.
This is a narrow
conception of philosophy.
What does cheating
mean? Philosophy can examine the
meanings of words.
What are empirical
facts?
Facts that can be
determined by experience or experiment, in principle. It can be past, present, or future experience.
The only meaningful
statements there can be are those about empirical facts.
Statements about morality
cannot be translated into empirical facts.
He would disagree
that
“Cheating on your
spouse is wrong” MEANS “Cheating on your spouse will hurt others”
His reason is that
he thinks it is obvious that it is not a self-contradiction to say “Cheating on
your spouse will hurt others but is not wrong.”
He argues that statements
about morality are not absolute, because people disagree about morality.
So he concludes that
statements about morality are just expressions of emotions.
He is a skeptic
about morality. There is no truth about
morality in his view.
