Lecture 15. Moral Philosophy and Ethics

Moral Philosophy
Lecture 15
What Is Ethics?
• We daily face moral questions that should be answered by values we have
chosen for ourselves
Is Ethics Relative?
• Although ethics and the social sciences study morality in very different ways, both have addressed one
important issue. Many social scientists have been impressed by how different the moralities of different
societies are. For example, many societies think that slavery is unjust, whereas others have felt slavery is
permissible; some societies believe that infanticide is wrong, but other societies practice it frequently. This
is also the case with differences regarding the morality of many activities, including abortion, polygamy,
patricide, slavery, suicide, nepotism, sexual and ethnic discrimination, genocide, homosexuality,
euthanasia, pornography, pedophilia, and the torture of animals. This diversity of moral standards has led
many social scientists to embrace a view called cultural relativism. Cultural relativism holds that different
cultures have different moralities and that what one culture believes is wrong, another culture may believe
is right. In other words, cultural relativism is the view that what people actually believe about morality
depends on the culture in which they live. Cultural relativism is undoubtedly valid. Still, many social
scientists have gone a step further and embraced ethical relativism, which is really a philosophical view
and one that might be false.
• To understand ethical relativism, one must first be familiar with ethical absolutism.
Ethical absolutism states that one and only one correct morality exists. Absolutists
maintain that this one morality applies to everyone, everywhere, and always, although not
everyone follows it or believes in it. What is a moral duty for me must also be a duty for
you. What is a moral duty for an American must also be a moral duty for an Asian,
African, European, or aborigine. If lying is wrong, it is wrong for everyone, always,
everywhere. That a society may see nothing wrong with pedophilia, lying, or cannibalism
in no way affects the rightness or wrongness of such actions. Ethical absolutists do not
necessarily claim that their own morality is the true and valid one. Yet they do insist that
there is one true morality that is the same for all people in all ages and places.
• Ethical relativism denies the existence of a single, universally applicable
moral standard. As the name implies, ethical relativists insist that the
correct morality is relative to one’s society: Each society has its own
morality, and an action is morally right for a person if the morality of
one’s society approves of the action. In short, ethical relativism holds that
because there is no morality that all societies follow, each person should
follow the morality of his or her own particular society.
• Problems with ethical relativism include these: (1) When people in a
society disagree on the standards they accept, whose should be followed?
(2) Ethical relativism implies that one has to accept society’s views and
not question them. (3) From the fact that societies differ in the moral
standards they accept, it does not follow that there is not one correct group
of moral standards. (4) There are some moral values that all societies must
accept if they are to survive.
• Consequentialist ethical theories hold that a morally right action is one
that produces more good and fewer bad consequences than any other
action.
Egoism
• Some ethicists believe that in deciding the morality of an action, we should consider only
the good and bad consequences for ourselves. These ethicists are called egoists. Ethical
egoism contends that we act morally when we act in a way that best promotes our own
long-term interests. Ethical egoism recognizes that our actions have consequences that can
be good or bad for us. So, ethical egoism says that an action is morally right when it
produces more good and fewer bad consequences for us than any other action we could
perform in its place. Although egoists may argue about what actions will do this, they
agree that once we identify such actions, we should take them. However, this notion does
not imply that we should do whatever we want; often, what we want is not what is in our
best long-term interests. A thirteenyear-old, for example, may want to take a drug that gets
him high, even though it’s addicting.
• Hedonism is the ethical philosophy that holds that only pleasure is worth
• having for its own sake: that is, hedonists view pleasure and only pleasure as
• having intrinsic value. Many egoists are hedonistic; for example, the ancient
• Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 bce) argued that people should live so
• as to produce as much pleasure for themselves as possible. But two points need
• stressing. First, it’s important to understand what the hedonist (or any moral
• philosopher, for that matter) means by “pleasure.” Second, not all egoists are
• strict hedonists.
Problems of Ethical Egoism
• Ethical egoism does pose many problems, however. First is the issue of confl icting interests, which Kurt Baier
(1917– ) has expressed quite graphically. He asks us to imagine two presidential candidates, whom we will call
Brown and Kory. It is in the interests of both to be elected, but only one can succeed. It follows, then, that it
would be in Brown’s interest but not in Kory’s if Brown were elected, and vice versa. Similarly, it would be in
Brown’s interest but not in Kory’s if Kory were liquidated, and vice versa. More important, Brown ought to do
everything possible to get rid of Kory; in fact, it would be wrong for Brown not to do so. Likewise, Kory,
knowing that his own liquidation is in Brown’s interests, ought to take steps to foil Brown’s endeavors. Indeed,
it would be wrong for Kory not to do so. “It follows,” writes Baier, “that if [Kory] prevents [Brown] from
liquidating him, his act must be said to be wrong and not wrong—wrong because it is the prevention of what
[Brown] ought to do, his duty, and wrong for [Brown] not to do it; not wrong because it is what [Kory] ought
to do, his duty, and wrong for [Kory] not to do it.”9 Baier’s point is that egoism seems unable to resolve confl
icts of interest, which he assumes that a moral theory should do. Without that assumption, however, there are no
confl icts, just a fully relativized situation in which each individual believes in his or her own best interests.

Lecture 15. Moral Philosophy and Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 15. Moral Philosophy and Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 15. Moral Philosophy and Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moral Philosophy

You might also like