Philosophy 1338

Chapters: 21, 5, 19, 20, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 15, 16

Chapter 21
Ethical Objectivism:
It means that moral exists, applies to everybody, independent of everything. There is right and wrong,
we just have to find them.

The 11 Arguments:
1. Objectivity requires absolutism:
If moral claims are objectively true, then they will always be true.
Ex: lying is good as well as bad.
Morals can be objective, but they cannot be absolute.

2. All truth is subjective:

There are no objective truth. No truth is independent of everything.
Problem: “There… ” has to be true or false. If it is false, then the argument is invalid. But if it is true, then
the sentence itself cannot be true. This is a self-defeating argument/statement. So, it cannot be true.

3. Equal rights imply equal plausibility:

a. If everyone has an equal right to an opinion, then all opinions are equally plausible.
b. Everyone has an equal right to his or her moral opinions.
c. Therefore, all moral opinions are equally plausible.
d. If all moral opinions are equally plausible, then ethical objectivism is false.
e. Therefore, ethical objectivism is false.

Counterargument: Not all moral opinions are equally plausible. But moral objectivism can still exist.
Ex: “You have cancer” said by a doctor and by a beggar.

4. Moral objectivity supports dogmatism:

Dogmatism: Believing one’s opinion is the only correct one, regardless of consideration of evidence or
the opinions of others.
 a. If there are objective moral standards, then this makes dogmatism acceptable.
b. Dogmatism is unacceptable.
c. Therefore, there are no objective moral standards.
Ex: Hitler was a dogmatism and most people believe he was wrong.
All fanatics fall under the definition of ethical objectivists.

5. Moral objectivity supports intolerance:

a. Tolerance is valuable only if the moral views of different people are equally plausible.
b. If ethical objectivism is true, then the moral views of different people are not equally
plausible.
c. Therefore, if ethical objectivism is true, then tolerance is not valuable.

Counterargument:
a. If all moral views are equally plausible, then moral views supporting tolerance and those
supporting intolerance are equally plausible.
b. These moral views are not equally plausible.
c. Therefore, some moral views are less plausible than others.
Chapter 5: Morality and Religion

Three assumption that say morality depends on religion:

1. Religious belief is needed to get us to do our duty.
2. Morality must be created by someone, and God is by far the best candidate for the job.
3. Religious wisdom is the key to providing us with moral guidance.

First assumption: Religious belief is needed to get us to do our duty

The thought of spending eternity in flames, or divorced from God’s love, is a powerful check on our
immoral impulses. So believers have a strong desire to be moral because they fear God. Non-believers
(atheists) don’t have such reasons.
Still, it doesn’t mean that religious people are more likely to do good. This only shows that believers are
more careful in what they do, but this doesn’t mean they are doing good. Religion has asked their
people to kill, to take land and wealth of others. Religion doesn’t always help us to become better
people.
Imagine a person who works and does his duty, but they do this only in fear of God. Such a person is
unreliably moral. So, if God would not punish people for their wrongdoings, that person will see no
reason to do their duty.
Fear of God does not mean that God exists. And it doesn’t show that religious beliefs are correct.

Second assumption: God is the creator of morality

Because morality is a set of norms, there must be someone with authority to create them. There is no
single human that could make up the moral law. A morality built on imperfections would lack credibility.

Argument for God’s Creation of Morality:

1. Every law requires a lawmaker.
2. Therefore, the moral law requires a lawmaker.
3. Humans cannot be the author of moral laws.
4. If humans cannot be the author of moral laws, then God is its author.
5. Therefore, God is the author of the moral law.
This line of thinking leads to the Divine Command Theory.
Ac act is morally requires just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.
Problems with DCT:
God may not exist. Or God may exist, but not command us to do anything. If DCT is true and if either
atheism or deism (God exists, but is retired now) is correct, then nothing is right or wrong. Morality
would be a complete sham.
Euthyphro dialogue:
Plato’s question:
“Does God command us to do actions because they are morally right, or are actions morally right
because God commands them?”
DCT chooses second option. Prior to God’s commands, nothing was right or wrong, and morality did not
exist.
First option is incorrect because it means that God did not create morality.

Euthyphro Argument:

1. Either God has reasons that support His commands, or God lacks reasons for His commands.
2. If God lacks reasons for His commands, then God's commands are arbitrary, and that renders
God imperfect, undermining His moral authority.
3. If God has reasons that support His commands, then these reasons, rather than the divine
commands, are what make actions right or wrong, thereby refuting the Divine Command
Theory.
4. Therefore, either God is imperfect, or the Divine Command Theory is false.
5. God is not imperfect.
6. Therefore, the Divine Command Theory is false.

Third assumption: Religious wisdom is the key to providing us with moral

guidance.

God is like a thermometer. God did not create morality, rather He understands everything and
commands what things are right and what are wrong.
Worries:
1. Non-religious people will have to look elsewhere to find moral guidance.
2. Those people are doing the correct thing because God may not exist.
3. God may exist, but not offer us any help.
Chapter 19: Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism comes under ethical skepticism.

Moral skepticism: denial of objective moral standards.
Objective moral standards: standards that apply to everyone, even if people don’t believe that they do,
even if people are indifferent to them, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy anyone’s desires.
Ethical objectivism: the view that some moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral
claims are objectively true.
Group Relativism: claims that the correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies or group.
Individual Relativism: claims that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each individual.
Both group and individual relativism regard people as the authors of morality; made by and made for
human beings.
If individual relativism is correct, then each person’s moral standards are equally plausible.

Problems with Relativism:

Moral Infallibility
Individualists are suspicious of group relativism because of their belief that societies can be deeply
mistaken about what is right and wrong.
Group relativism can have some social beliefs that can be morally mistaken. Example: a girl from
Istanbul raped; father killed her to protect family’s honor.
Iconoclast: a person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom.
An iconoclast would always be morally mistaken.

Moral Equivalence
Everyone’s basic moral views are equally plausible in individual relativism. Group relativism will deny
that everyone’s moral views are equally plausible. Example: Hitler.

Questioning our own Commitments

If Individual relativism is correct, but if I cannot decide whether I approve or disapprove of something,
then this cannot make sense.

Moral Progress
The problem for group and individual relativism is that it can’t make sense of the most basic kind of
moral progress. If a person’s or a society’s deepest beliefs are true by definition, then they cannot
change for the better. They can change, but no change would mark moral improvement. This is because
each moral view is equally plausible, and there is no right and wrong.
Individual Relativism and Problem of Contradiction
Since every person has a right to their opinion, contradicting views on the same matter leads to a
contradiction. If there is a contradiction in a theory, then it becomes false. So, ethical relativism will
become false. But to counter this counterargument, relativists say that when people talk about their
view, they mean “according to me”, and then, there is no contradiction. People are just stating their
own opinions.
Individualism is unable to explain the existence of moral disagreement. If everyone is stating their own
opinions, then nobody is wrong. It now becomes impossible for people to morally disagree with one
another.

Group Relativism and Problem of Contradiction

They face the same problem as individualists. Group relativists also get away with this problem by saying
that the moral judgments are true only relative to social agreements. Example: smoking marijuana is
both legal and illegal.
Another problem they face is that people are usually part of more than one group. They fail if the two
groups have conflicting beliefs. They are then forced to choose between the larger group and the
smaller group. Their actions are both moral and immoral, which is a contradiction.
This problem could be solved by choosing the group that has more power, but group relativism doesn’t
allow us to do that. It just states that every belief is equally plausible. No society’s moral code is better
than any other’s. Moreover, if we let the individual decide, then this undermines group relativism, as it
shifts to individual relativism.
When group relativists and individual relativists’ views conflict, each one thinks their moral belief is
better.

Ideal Observers
They can survey the moral scene more knowledgeably and more rationally. They are better suited to
inventing the moral law than we mortal individuals are.
An act becomes morally right just because I favor it if I were fully informed and perfectly rational.
Then the moral disagreements between individuals and groups disappear as we have authoritative
endorsements. Moral progress will be possible, as groups and individuals reach closer to the ideal
observer.

Two Problems with Ideal Observer

Disagreement between ideal observers again leads to contradiction.
This problem can be solved by letting the individual decide about the moral action. Meaning, if ideal
observers disagreed on a matter, then that matter is neither required nor forbidden, rather it is
permitted.
Things are right only if ideal observers favor it. But what if they are not kind, and allow killing mentally ill
people?
This same problem also threatens the Divine Command Theory. The DCT says that no acts are
intrinsically right or wrong; their morality depends entirely on whether God approves of them.
Example: torture is bad because it imposes pain, suffering, and disrespect. If these are good reasons,
then they are all that’s needed to make torture wrong. The disapproval doesn’t add anything to these
reasons. Socrates’s argument against DCT is a strong one. Acts are right because they are supported by
excellent reasons, not because some group happens to favor them.
Chapter 20: Moral Nihilism

3 options to determine the status of morality:

1. Morality might be objective, its rules applying to us independently of our opinions and desires.
2. Morality might be relativistic, and depend for its authority on personal or group preferences.
3. Morality may simply be a kind of make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations
that represent nothing real.
The last one is moral nihilism.
Both nihilists and relativists agree that morality is a human creation. They differ in moral goodness,
moral duty and moral virtue/qualities.

Fact-value Distinction
Nihilists believe in facts, but not in values. Value claims cannot be factual/proven, so they are false. Facts
inform us of something, values don’t.

Error Theory
Error theory is not a moral theory. Error theory is a metaphysical theory, which is a theory about what
the world is truly like, and what really exists. Other example is theism. Error theorists claim that our
moral judgments are always mistaken.
Claims:
1. There are no moral features in this world.
2. No moral judgments are true.
3. Our sincere moral judgments try, and always fail, to describe the moral features of things.
4. There is no moral knowledge.
Basically, morality is a fiction.
Error theory => Morality is same as Atheists => Religion
Categorical reasons: reasons that apply to us regardless of whether acting on them will get us what we
want.
If error theory is correct, then people will abandon morality, which will lead to terrible results.

Argument from Disastrous Results:

1. If widespread acceptance of a view would lead to disastrous results, then that view is false.
2. Widespread acceptance of the error theory would lead to disastrous results.
3. Therefore, the error theory is false.
Expressivism

We are not trying to report the moral features possessed by various actions, motives or policies. Instead,
we are just venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of
action. Example: torture -> disgust.
Different from ethical theory: expressivism doesn’t say if torture is true or false; it just expresses its
emotions toward it.
It also doesn’t have a problem with contradiction, unlike group and individual relativism. Of expressivists
are right, no moral claim is either true or false, so moral contradictions disappear.

Worries:

How is it possible to argue logically about morality?

When we claim that all actions that dehumanize people are immoral, we don’t mean it. We simply mean
that dehumanizing people is disgusting. So it being moral or immoral is out of the picture.

Expressivism and Amoralists

An amoralist is someone who sincerely makes moral claims, but is entirely unmoved by them.
Expressivism believes that emotions are what motivate us to do things. The person who really is lacking
in motivation cannot be sincere in their moral claims.

Nature of Moral Judgment

Ethical objectivists, group relativists, and error theorists agree on one thing: moral claims try to tell us
about the moral features that things actually have. Moral judgments can be true or false, depending on
how well they report the truth about which things have which moral qualities.