Moral Skepticism
denial of objective moral standards
view that gaining moral knowledge is impossible
not about content of morality, but about its status
Objective moral standards
applies 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
Moral claims are objectively true
whenever they accurately tell us what these objective moral standards are or what they require of us
Ethical Objectivism
View that some moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true
Two forms of moral skepticism:
1. Moral nihilism
2.Ethical Relativism
Moral nihilism
1. view that there are no moral truths at all. When we take a step back from the issues that engage our emotions, we see that nothing is right and nothing is wrong.
Moral Nihilism - Scottish Philosopher: David Hume (1711-76)
We guid and stain a value-free world with our feelings and desires"
- When we declare a murder wicked or a relief worker good and kind, we are expressing our anger or our admiration. We are not stating a fact. We couldn't be since there are no moral real
Ethical Relativism
2. claim that some moral rules really are correct, and that these determine which moral claims are true and which are false
-Beliefs agree with the correct moral standards
-these moral standards are only correct only relatative to each person or society a
Two Kinds of Ethical Relativism
1. Cultural Relativism
2. Individual Relativism (Ethical Subjectivism -- SL uses this term in the book)
Cultural Relativism
claims that the correct moral standards are relative to culture or societies
----Cultural Relativism
An act is morally acceptable just because it is allowed by the guilding ideals of the socity in which it is performed, and immorable jsut because it is forbidden by those ideals
locates the ultimate standard of morality within each culture's commitments
Ethical Subjectivism
claims that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each individual
(Ethical) Subjectivism
An act is morally acceptable just because
1. I approve of it
2. my commitments allow it.
An action is wrong because
1. I disapprove of it
2. my commitments forbid it
if subjectivism is correct, each person's moral standards are equally plausible
Both Relativists and Subjectivists
regard people as the authors of morality
if we extinct, morality will cease to exist
*Fundamental difference: whether each person, or each society, gets to have the final say in ethics
Some implications of Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism
1. Moral Infallibility (incapable of errors)
-occupy middle ground b/w moral nihilism and ethical objectivism
----there are legitimate moral standards (contrary to nihilism), but their legitimacy depends crucially on our support (contrary to objectivism).
Moral Infallibility: Subjectivists are suspicious of relativism bc societies can be deeply mistaken about what is right or wrong.
Problem with Cultural Relativism
CASE: Nuran Halitogullari, 14 yr old from Istanbul who was abducted and raped on her way home from the supermarket.
-raped over course of 6 days and rescued by police
-father decided that she has dishonored her family
-he decided to kill her because honor
Such killings are supported by deep cultural assumptions
1. that men should have the power of life and death over women
2. that women ought to obey their husbands, fathers, and brothers unconditionally
3. that a man's feeling of shame is enough to justify killing the woman who has made him feel that way
Iconoclast
the person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom (always be morally mistaken)
Problem with Subjectivism
make each person's basic commitments morally infallible
-Subjectivism allows people to make mistakes, but only if they fail to realize what follows from their own commitments
Problem: ultimate moral principles can be based on prejudice, ignorance, superfi
according to both kinds of relativisms
origins of our basic moral beliefs are irrelevant
no matter where they claim, they cannot be mistaken
Moral Equivalence
-Ethical Subjectivism is a doctrine of moral equivalence; everyone's basic moral views are as plausible as everyone else's
----if ES is correct, Hitler or Stalin are plausible as Nobel Peace laureate
-Cultural Relativism will deny that everyone's moral vi
Questioning Our Own Commitments
-If ES is correct, that I know what is right so long as I know what I approve of.
===my approvals are the ultimate test of morality
-CR - there is no room in this theory to second guess the guiding ideals of one's own society since they are correct moral
Moral Progress
To measure moral progress you need a standard.
In ethics, that standard is the ultimate moral rule (or rules, if we are pluralists)
-if ES is correct, that ultimate rule is personal opinion
-if CR is correct, that ultimate rule is given by a society's bas
Final problem for both theories: Contradiction
-when something is said to be both true and false at the same time
Subjectivism Leads to contradiction
(S) A moral judgment is true if it accurately reports one's feelings or commitments and is false otherwise
If (S) is correct, then people on opposite sides of moral debates are both saying something true.
ES + Problem of Contradiction
1. Any theory that generates contradictions is false
2. Ethical subjectivism generates contradictions
3. Therefore, ES is false
Premise 1 is true.
Attack 2. There is a subjectivist strategy for avoiding contradiction, but it has its costs.
--Solution: we
Costs of saying we don't mean
1. Have to accuse nearly everyone of misunderstanding their moral claims
-Ex: genocide is immoral
2. Such a view eliminates the possibility of moral disagreement
To avoid contractions
Subjectivists have to say that our moral assertions report facts only about our own commitments
-When I say genocide is wrong, I'm not saying that it has a certain feature -- wrongness. I'm saying that I disapprove of it or that my principles forbid it. I
Second Problem: Subjectivism is unable to explain the existence of moral diagreement
In order to avoid generating contradictions, we have to understand all moral judgments as reports of personal approval or disapproval.
But on this line, moral debates that seem to involve intense disagreement become something completely different. It beco
----
----
Cultural Relativism and Problem of Contraction
it says that a moral judgement is true just because it correct describes what a society really stands for
Escape: they will claim that moral judgements are true only relative to social agreements
-our moral claims have to be understood by reference to soc
Example of people who are members of subcultures
Wisconsin v Yoder, a case resolved by the US Supreme Court in 1972
Wisconsin then required school attendance of children 16+
Sons of 3 Old Order Amish families stopped going to school after the eight grade, in obedience to their parents' belief that continued schooling would conflict with their religious values. The stud
Nature way to fix problems:
Nature way to fix problems: we should guarantee that those who create the moral law (whether individual or societies) are not choosing from ignorance, but are equipped with full information. Make sure that they are reasoning clearly and avoiding logical e
Ideal Observers
the ultimate standard of morality
can survey the scene more dispassionately, knowledgeably, and rationally
An act is morally right just because I would favor it were I fully informed and rational
Correct problems:
1. even the core moral beliefs of individuals and societies may now be mistaken, as their views may fail to measure up to those of the ideal observers
2. the views of individuals and societies will not be morally equivalent since some wi
Problems with ideal observers
1. if there is ever any disagreements among ideal observers
-view says that perfectly rational and intelligent people create morality through their choices.
-if so, then such people make conflicting choices, causing contradictions
Solution: an action is m
Socrates
Acts are right because they are supported by excellent reasons, and not because individuals or groups just happen to favor them