Intro to Moral Philosophy



Practical Ethics Series

Introduction to Moral Philosophy I

Terry L Anderson

Sep 16, 2000

(Copyright 2000, by Terry L Anderson)

Primary Sources (Listed in order of extent of contribution):

• Fred Feldman. Introductory Ethics. 1978. Prentice-Hall.

• Lawrence M. Himnan. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 1998. Harcourt Brace College Pulblishers.

• James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 1999 McGraw-Hill.

Introduction

During the summer meeting at my house we briefly introduced the Practical Ethics Series. I ask the indulgence of those who were there to allow me to repeat a little for those who were not. I have copies of the handout from that meeting listing the sources we will be using and outlining our study.

In addition, we took a brief “personal ethical inventory” that I would like to make available to those who would like to participate.

Today we will begin a more formal treatment of moral philosophy. This foundation will take us a couple of sessions and then will be followed by several sessions in which we introduce alternative systems of normative ethics along with applications to illustrative moral situations. After this, we will have a foundation in moral philosophy and will continue (as long as the group maintains interest) in using our tools to analyze a wide variety of moral issues that challenge us in daily life: practical ethics.

What is Morality?

We all think we know but a satisfactory, precise definition is nearly impossible. Rachels illustrates how hard it is and then tries to extract the common elements from various definitions to give a Minimum Conception of Morality:

Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by one’s conduct.

Unfortunately, we will find even this presupposes one of several alternative systems of normative ethics (to be defined later). Hinman suggests a definition even more general than Rachels’ Minimum Conception of Morality, that a culture’s rules, guideline or code of behavior is a moral code. And that if one steps back and reflects on moral belief, this is ethical reflection. He finds it useful to look at the language used. Moral discussion will usually contain words or phrases like: should or ought; duty to or obligated to; good, bad, right, wrong, immoral; have a right to; overall good; who will be hurt.

Feldman credits Hartland-Swann with a definition that for any society

1. The most important customs are “laws”

2. Intermediate customs are “moral rules”

3. Least important are “rule of etiquette”

Common Elements

Hinman goes on to look for common elements in moral codes as a way to understand morality.

Acts

Most moral rules deal with acts. Common elements are

1. Impartiality (they require treating all others the same or equality)

2. Compassion (they require consideration of the needs and desires of others)

3. Universal bindings, imperatives, binding on all (they require all individuals to follow the same rules)

4. Categorical Imperatives (Kant) (unconditional rules that state rules of behavior that do not start with if)

Intent

Other moral rules deal with intent. In these rules it is not enough to do the right thing but one must do it for the right reason. Here the concern is about character, being a good person rather than doing a good thing. This comes from the tradition, virtue ethics.

Moral Issue

Hinman suggests two aspects make an issue a moral issue: content and standpoint. The situation must deal with content such as:

1. Hurt or harm to someone

2. Deception

3. Fairness or unequal treatment

4. Conflicting values

5. Character

But also we must approach it from the standpoint of right or wrong, good or bad action. Simply report statistics or how various social forces lead to specific behavior we are not discussing morals.

What is Ethics?

We’ve already seen Hinman’s definition that ethics is stepping back and reflecting on morals.

Perspective

He points our two perspectives. We can reflect on our acts our on the acts of others.

Others

There are several issue of concern about moral reflection on the acts of others.

1. Hypocrisy – issues of consistency and motivation

2. Knowing other people – we might judge acts but cannot judge intent or motivation

3. Right to judge – what right do we have to judge others

4. Intervention – when does one have the right to intervene in the moral life of another

5. Condemning vs caring – are we motivated to reflecting on others acts because we care, to help in some way or to condemn.

QUESTION: Is there a morality of participation in ethics? Can “why we reflect” or “how we reflect” be good or bad?

Self

Most are much more comfortable with the focus of reflection being on ones own life. Here the reflection can be used to guide our actions and our responses to others.

Types of Ethics

Feldman gives a much more precise definition of ethics:

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality.

And discusses several distinct kinds of ethics as well as kinds of moral reflection that is not ethics.

Descriptive Morals

While morals may be universal.(applying to all individuals in a society), it does (by most definitions) vary from society to society. The study of moral diversity, simply describing or cataloging moral rules without analyzing the principles behind them is not philosophy but more the domain of sociology or anthropology and so not ethics.

Non-theoretic Morals (first order)

Developing and defending moral positions without reference to any general principles, while commonly called “ethics”, again does not use the tools of philosophy and so is not truly ethics.

Normative Ethics (second order)

Normative ethics is:

To discover, formulate and defend fundamental principles of moral behavior

Such a study can make use of many of the tools of philosophy. For example, a common principle is utilitarianism—doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Metaethics (third order)

Another use of philosophical tools is to discuss the principles behind normative ethics, principally to discover or define the meaning of critical terms: what is the meaning of “good”, “bad”, “right”, etc. Another use is to discuss logical relationships between principles, e.g.,

If one is morally obligated to do a, but one cannot do a without also doing b then one is morally obligated to do b.

Applied Ethics or Practical Ethics (first order)

The formal application of principles of normative ethics to specific moral situations or issues can be similar to non-theoretic morals but if done using the tools of philosophy and with explicit appeal to general principles it can be a valid field of ethics.

Ethical Systems

As in other areas of philosophy or science, one can develop a system of ethics using an inductive or deductive approach.

Induction

One can use descriptive morals and non-theoretic morals as data and look for common patterns, using these to “discover” general or fundamental principles [normative ethical principles]. From these one can extract common patterns in the terms or concepts in these principle yielding metaethics.

Deduction

Alternatively one can begin by postulating metaethical terms and concepts and use these to derive normative ethical principles. One can then formally apply these principles to real issues and situations [practical ethics].

CHALLENGE: Is there a difference between moral right and wrong and religious or Christian right and wrong? Can something be religiously wrong but morally neutral (eg. Breaking the Sabbath or eating unclean meat)? Can something be morally wrong but religiously neutral? Can anything be right in one and wrong in the other? Think about this and we will discuss it in a future session.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download