Principles of CER

A. Morality is relative to a given culture.

B. It is wrong to judge the moral practices of another culture.
CER fails the Standard of Clarity, Coherence and RE
The Nazis Argument, The Reformer's Dilemma, The Arbitrariness Argument
Principles of SES
A. An action A is morally right iff I (the speaker) approve of A.
B. An action A is morally wrong iff I (the speaker) disapprove of A.
SES fails RE The Infallibility Argument, The Disagreement Argument
Principles of DCT
A. An action X is morally obligatory iff God commands X.
B. An action X is morally impermissible iff God forbids X.
C. An action X is permissible otherwise.
Arguably passes the standard of Clarity The Problem of Evil
Fails the standard of Coherence The Euthyphro Argument
Fails the standard of RE The Non-Believer Argument, The Animal Rights Argument, The Womens' Rights
Argument, The Homosexuality Argument
The Principle of NLT
An action X is morally right iff X is consistent with all relevant proper purposes in a world of proper purpose.
Arguably passes the standard of Clarity
NLT clearly fails Coherence because it assumes the Teleological World View. The contraception Argument
Fails the standard of RE The Masturbation Argument, The Contraception Argument, The Homosexuality
Argument
The Principle of UET
UET

Hedonic
HAU: An action X is
morally right iff X
promotes at least as great a

Act

balance of pleasure over

pain for the greatest
number of people,
considered equally, as any
alternative action.

Rule HRU: An action X is

Eudaimonic

Ideal

Preferential

EAU: An action X is morally IAU: An action X is

PAU: An action X is

right iff X promotes at least

morally right iff X

morally right iff X promotes

as great a balance of

promotes at least as much at least as many of the

happiness over unhappiness

of the best interests of the preferences of the greatest

for the greatest number of

greatest number of people, number of people,

people, considered equally, as considered equally, as any considered equally, as any

any alternative action.

alternative action.

ERU: An action X is morally IRU: An action X is

alternative action.
PRU:An action X is morally

morally right iff X is in

accord with a rule R, where
R is an essential member of
a set of rules S such that S,
when followed, promotes
at least as great a balance
of pleasure over pain for
the greatest number of
people, considered equally,
as any alternative set of
rules.

right iff X is in accord with a

rule R, where R is an
essential member of a set of
rules S such that S, when
followed, promotes at least as
great a balance of happiness
over unhappiness for the
greatest number of people,
considered equally, as any
alternative set of rules.

morally right iff X is in

accord with a rule R,

right iff X is in accord with

where R is an essential

a rule R, where R is an

member of a set of rules S essential member of a set of

such that S, when

rules S such that S, when

followed, promotes at

followed, promotes at least

least as much of the best

as many preferences of the

interests of the greatest

greatest number of people,

number of people,

considered equally, as any

considered equally, as any alternative set of rules.

alternative set of rules.

The Principle of KET

First Formulation Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become
universal law.
Second Formulation Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as
an end and never as a means only.
Fails the Standard of RE The Case of the Inquiring Murderer

Principles of SCT
A.
B.

An action A is morally right iff A is in accord with a rule R, where R is necessary for social
living.
A rule R is necessary for social living iff rational people would agree to act in accordance
with R for their mutual benefit, provided that everyone acts in accordance with R.

Fails the Standard of RE The Non-Human Animals Argument, The Non-Rational Humans Argument

Ethical Egoism (EGO):

An action X is morally right iff X promotes my (the speaker's) best interests at least as well as any alternative to
X.
Fails the Standard of Coherence The Conflict Argument
Fails the Standard of RE The Discrimination Argument

1.

The Cultural Differences Argument

Different cultures have different moral beliefs, practices, and
1
traditions.
If different cultures have different moral beliefs, practices, and
2
traditions, then there is no universal moral truth.
If there is no universal moral truth, then morality is relative to a
3
given culture.
Therefore, 4 Morality is relative to a given culture.

1,2&3

But the Cultural Differences Argument is clearly unsound. Why? The second premise is plainly false. At one
time, some people believed that the Earth is flat, and others believed that it is round. Did their difference of
opinion imply anything about the actual shape of the Earth? Of course not. In general, one cannot infer anything
about the way the world is from differences in beliefs about the way the world is. People can be confused and
mistaken; one cannot infer that there is no universal moral truth just because people have different beliefs about
morality.
2.

The Reformer's Dilemma

If CER is true, then the abolitionist movement in pre-civil war US
1
was morally wrong.
The abolitionist movement in pre-civil war US was not morally
2
wrong.
Therefore, 3 CER is not true.

1&2

3.

The Infallibility Argument

1 If SES is true, moral judgement is equivalent to approval or disapproval.
2 We are infallible with respect to our approval or disapproval.
3 If SES is true, we are infallible with respect to our moral judgements.
4 We are not infallible with respect to our moral judgements.
5 SES is not true.
The Disagreement Argument
If SES is true, then X's sincerely saying 'A is right' is equivalent to X's sincerely
1 saying 'I approve of A' and Y's sincerely saying 'A is wrong' is equivalent to Y's
sincerely saying 'I disapprove of A'.

1&2
3&4

2
3
4

If X sincerely says 'I approve of A' and Y sincerely says 'I disapprove of A' then
X and Y cannot be disagreeing.
If SES is true, then if X sincerely says 'A is right' and Y sincerely says 'A is
wrong' then X and Y cannot be disagreeing.
IF [if X sincerely says 'A is right' and Y sincerely says 'A is wrong' then X and

Y cannot be disagreeing], THEN there can be no moral disagreement.

5 If SES is true, then there can be no moral disagreement.
6 There can be moral disagreement.
7 SES is not true.

1&2

3&4

4.

The Problem of Evil

1 God is all-powerful.
2 God is all-knowing.
3 God is perfectly good.
4 If (1), (2), and (3), then evil cannot exist.
5 Evil exists.
Either God is not all-powerful, God is not all-knowing, or God is not
6
perfectly good.

1,2,3,4&5

5.

The Euthyphro Argument

1 DCT is true.
2 If DCT is true, then morality is dependent on God's will.
3 Morality is dependent on God's will.
1&2
Either an action X is morally right because God Commands X or God
4
Commands X because X is morally right.
If an action X is morally right because God commands X, then God could
5
have commanded otherwise.
6 If God could have commanded otherwise, then morality is arbitrary.
If an action X is morally right because God commands X, then morality
7
5&6
is arbitrary.
If an action X is morally right because God commands X, then X is good
8
just in case X is commanded by God.
If X is good just in case X is commanded by God, then God's commands
9
are good just in case they are commanded by God.
If God's commands are good just in case they are commanded by God,
10
then goodness is meaningless.
If an action X is morally right because God commands X, then goodness
11
8,9&10
is meaningless.
If an action X is morally right because God commands X, then morality
12
7&11
is arbitrary and goodness is meaningless.
13 It is not the case that morality is arbitrary and God's goodness is

 14

meaningless.
It is not the case that an action X is morally right because God commands

12&13
X.
15 God commands X because X is morally right.
4&14
If God commands X because X is morally right, then morality is not
16
dependent on God's will.
17 Morality is not dependent on God's will.
15&16
18 DCT is not true.
1,3&17
But if morality is not arbitrary, then it's not the case that an action is right because God commands it. Rather, it
must be the case that God commands the action because the action is right.
There's the rub. If God commands an action because it is right, then there must be some conception of morality
which is antecedent to or independent of God's will. The rightness of the action is determined by something
other than God's will. Whether or not God commanded or forbade an action, it would still be right, or wrong, as
the case may be.
6.

The Non-Believer Argument

1 If DCT is true, then atheists and agnostics cannot be good people.
2 Atheists and agnostics can be good people.
3 DCT is not true.
The Animal Rights Argument
1 If DCT is true, then animals have no rights.
2 It is not the case that animals have no rights.
3 DCT is not true.
The Women' Rights Argument
1 If DCT is true, then women have fewer rights than men.
2 It is not the case that women have fewer rights than men.
3 DCT is not true.
The Contraception Argument
If NLT is true, then (under the Catholic Church's interpretation) the use of
1
contraceptives is morally wrong.
2 It is not the case that the use of contraceptives is morally wrong.
3 NLT is not true (under the Catholic Church's interpretation).

1&2

1&2

1&2

1&2

7.
The Justice Argument

1 If CU is true, then the constable's jailing of an innocent black man is morally right.
2 The constable's jailing of an innocent black man is not morally right.

 3 CU is not true.
8.
Intrinsic good: sought for their own sake
Extrinsic good: sought for the sake of something else

For example, we all want to make a lot of money, but not because money itself is good. Rather, money is
an extrinsic good in the sense that it enables us to get what is intrinsically good; pleasure, for instance.
Intrinsic goods include Happiness, Interest, Preference, Pleasure
9.

Rule Utilitarianism is a two-tiered theory:

First, evaluate a relevant rule to see whether the rule maximizes utility.
Second, determine whether or not the action being considered accords with the rule.
Avoiding the problem of considering the total consequences of a single, particular action. Instead, the
total consequences of all the actions done in accordance with a rule are considered
10.
The Horny Martin Example
Suppose that Martin is 20 year-old college student. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a
date. The woman of his dreams finally agrees to go out with him. So Martin gets all dressed up and takes
her out to a nice dinner, after which they drive up to Lookout Point. And...
Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself,
with disastrous consequences.
Because the same result cannot be obtained by application of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the
Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative are not extensionally equivalent.
11.

1 If KET is true, then Susan should tell the truth.

2 Susan should not tell the truth.
3 KET is not true.

1&2

You may wonder, why on earth would KET imply that Susan should tell the truth, and thereby enable Theresa's
murder? Remember from the example Kantian Deduction that everyone has the absolute duty to not lie. Hence
premise (1) is true.
Of course, pretheoretically--i.e., judging solely by common moral intuition--whatever Susan does, she must not
enable Theresa's murder. Hence she should not tell the truth.
Kantians, those who think that KET is true, have an answer to the Case of the Inquiring Murderer which you
may or may not find plausible. They argue that the absolute duty to not lie is neither equivalent to, nor does it
imply, the absolute duty to tell the truth. They say, for instance, that Susan can avoid lying and avoid enabling
Theresa's murder merely by refraining to speak. Of course, you might imagine some problems with this
response.
12.

In order to apply the concept of the veil to a principle, rule, or policy, ask yourself whether persons behind the
veil of ignorance would adopt it. Individuals behind the veil would not adopt a rule allowing slavery for
example, since they would be ignorant of their own place in society (they themselves could be slaves, for all
they know). In other words, they would not adopt a rule allowing slavery because (as rational and largely selfinterested persons) they would not freely agree to a principle that places them at risk of being enslaved.