Samenvatting An introduction to Moral Philosophy
Chapter 1: Moral philosophy and moral reasoning
The point of moral philosophy
Morality -> take turns in conversation, not to bite/pinch/scratch, not to lie. If morality comes early, moral
philosophy (thinking and reflecting about morality) comes later if it comes at all.
Developing a moral outlook
People turn to moral philosophy because they face a serious moral difficulty in their own lives which they hope
will be resolved by understanding the works of the great philosophers (a source of moral wisdom and comfort).
Moral philosophy is a practical subject. What moral philosophy can do is help you develop your own moral
outlook on life -> a sharper sense of what does and does not matter from a moral point of view. It helps us
form a view of what considerations do, and do not, need to be taken seriously, and how we should develop our
reasoning, attention and emotions. It can help us think through the nature of our relationships with others, and
with other things of value (animal world, environment). It can help us think about how best to use our talents
and energy and what our goals in life should be. Moral philosophy can also have implications for how you
should try to influence and educate those around you.
In this book ethical and moral are synonyms.
The nature of moral philosophy
Moral philosophy is the practice of reflecting philosophically on morality. It has a subject matter: morality, and
a method: philosophical reasoning. Morality concerns our conduct, reasoning, emotions and dispositions,
especially in how they relate to or affect others. Yet it seems that some things we do that affect others are
matters more of manners, or etiquette, rather than morality. Customs vary across groups within a given society
too. The line between etiquette and morality is fuzzy. In many cases, repeatedly failing to follow the normal
rules of manners can be a way of showing contempt or disrespect for those around you. This is where matters
of etiquette stray over the boundary into morality.
Morality concerns how our actions help or harm others in relatively serious ways. Scanlon states that morality
focuses on what we owe each other. Like you have a duty. Supererogation is the term for acting above and
beyond, like helping a friend of a friend to move.
Kant argued that we also have moral duties to ourselves.
Philosophers have made a three-way distinction among areas of moral philosophy: meta-ethics, normative
ethics and applied ethics.
Meta-ethics
Meta -> of a higher order. Meta-ethics questions about the nature and existence of value and our knowledge of
it. Examples of questions include: are values objective? How do we know what things or actions are good?
Normative ethics
Norm -> standard. But the notion of a standard is ambiguous. Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that
asks: what moral rules, principles, or doctrines should we accept? What benchmarks or standards should we
live by? So what should we do and how should we live.
Applied ethics
Issues of real life cry out for moral analysis. Applied ethics is the name for how this analysis is done. Applied
ethics differs from normative ethics primarily in focus and emphasis. In normative ethics, we try to form a
general approach to morality that, we hope, will have wide application. Applied ethics tends to begin with a
specific problem and then looks for values, principles, or other normative standards that can be applied to
resolve it. In applied ethics, it is common to look at a problem from various points of view to see which
arguments are the strongest and most compelling.
Moral reasoning
How you do moral philosophy is itself a question in moral philosophy. Although there is no agreed overarching
methodology, there are many techniques and patterns of reasoning that occur again and again. You can split
the discussion of methodology into four areas: logical principles of reasoning that apply to all subject matters,
informal techniques of argument that also apply to all subject areas, thought experiments and moral intuitions
and specific methodological devices used in moral philosophy.
,Formal logic: validity, soundness, equivocation, circularity
The most basic notion is that of an argument. An argument is a way of lending support for a particular
conclusion by reasoning from other claims. Formal logic is a method of argument, using deduction, in which
conclusions are derived from premises according to a set of logical rules.
One common and simple form of argument moves from two initial statements, each of which is known as a
premise, to a conclusion which is the end point of an argument.
Example: Premise 1: Socrates is a human being. Premise 2: All human beings are mortal. Therefore conclusion:
Socrates is mortal. How are we to evaluate this argument? An argument is said to be logically valid or a valid
deduction, when the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Logical validity occurs whenever it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. In other words: if the premises are true,
the conclusion must be true too. A good way of testing the validity of an argument is to try to imagine a world
in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. The idea of logical necessity is often also used here:
an argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So the conclusion that Socrates is
mortal necessarily follows from the premises that Socrates is a man and all men are mortal.
Example 2: Premise 1: Socrates is mortal. Premise 2: All human beings are mortal. Therefore conclusion:
Socrates is a human being. By means of this reordering we have produced an invalid argument. From the facts
that Socrates is mortal, and all human beings are mortal, it does not follow that Socrates is a human being.
Testing for validity, we will find that it is indeed possible to imagine a world in which the premises are true and
the conclusion is false (Socrates is the name of a dog). There is no contradiction in saying that Socrates is
mortal, but Socrates is not a human being. Therefore the conclusion that Socrates is a human being does not
follow, and the argument is invalid. But there is more needed for an argument.
Example 3: Premise 1: Socrates is a cat. Premise 2: All cats have ten legs. Therefore conclusion: Socrates has ten
legs. This is a logically valid argument, but it its hardly a compelling basis for concluding that Socrates has ten
legs. The problem is that the premises are false, and it is impossible to establish the truth of a conclusion based
on reasoning from false premises. What we are looking for are valid arguments from true premises. Such
arguments are said to be sound as well as valid. A valid argument must be based on true premises in order to
be considered not only valid but sound too. Argument 1, is a sound argument.
Arguments are not always formulated so explicitly. Often we need to reconstruct.
Example 4: Premise 1: Ryan is a baby. Premise 2: Babies suck pacifiers and go ‘ga, ga, ga’. Therefore conclusion:
Ryan sucks a pacifier and goes ‘ga, ga, ga’. The second premise is not explicitly stated but is taken as
background. Such assumptions are called implied premises (a claim that is not explicitly stated). Ryan takes it as
obvious that the conclusion is false. He doesn’t suck a pacifier and he speaks in proper words and sentences.
So, given that the argument is logically valid, one or more of the premises must be false.
The critically point about this example is that a logically valid argument can be used in two different ways. The
obvious way is to use it to attempt to prove the truth of the conclusion. If the premises are true and the
argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true as well (Argument 1), which concluded that Socrates is
mortal. The second way is to use it to attempt to prove that one of the premises is false. If a logically valid
argument leads to a false conclusion, then at least one of the premises must also be false.
Logic helps us understand the consistency of belief and also helps us understand how our beliefs logically
inform other beliefs that follow from them. But the fact you can logically derive one belief from another never
tells you that the derived belief is true.
Logic traps
The first fallacy is known as equivocation, in which the same word has different meanings in different premises
(bank -> side of river, financial institution).
Second fallacy is circular argument (or begging the question). The conclusion validly follows from the premises,
the premises already assume the truth of the conclusion. Example: someone is trying to convince you that God
exists, and offers the argument: the Bible says that God exists. You ask why the Bible can be trusted, and your
friend replies that it can be trusted because it is the word of God. This argument is circular and proves nothing.
Informal logic: analogy, induction, inference to the best explanation
Analogy -> the power of an argument from analogy is that if we can make a convincing comparison between
two fields of inquiry, we can use knowledge gained in one field to illuminate the other. A disadvantage is that
an inappropriate analogy can be misleading. In any case analogies always break down somewhere, because any
,two areas are unlikely to be exactly comparable at all levels of detail. Nevertheless it is a useful strategy in
reasoning.
Induction -> process of accumulating data to a point where it becomes possible to develop a general principle
or law. Example: I only see white swans, so all swans are white. Induction is often contrasted with deduction
which proves the truth of a conclusion if it is validity deducted from true premises. Induction is a helpful way of
assembling evidence or support a hypotheses. But even if the premises of an indicative argument are true and
they support your hypothesis, it does not necessarily follow that the conclusion is true. Induction is never
proof. For example when you have a small sample, your evidence is likely to be quickly refuted (shown to be
false) by other evidence.
Inference to the best explanation (or abduction) -> Example: relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
Although not all smokers develop lung cancer it is clear (by the use of indication) that there is a strong
association between lung cancer and smoking. From here, it is easy to jump straight to the conclusion that
smoking tends to cause lung cancer. However, even though the conclusion is correct. It would not be right to
adopt it merely on the basis of the indicative evidence. Induction on its own says nothing about the causal
relation. There are 2 competing hypotheses consistent with the data: that smoking tends to cause lung cancer
and that there is an underlying factor that causes both the tendency to develop lung cancer and smoking (used
by the Tabaco industry). In deciding on a theory we ask: what theory best explains the data? What theory is
consistent with the data? In practice we are much more comfortable with the idea of appealing to inference to
the best explanation (looking for an underlying mechanism, reason, theory) than with pure induction lone.
Thought experiments and moral intuitions
Thought experiments: a hypothetical situation that is devised in order to stimulate people to think deeply. The
thoughts that occur to you when thinking about moral cases are our moral intuitions. A moral theory that is in
line with people’s moral intuitions is usually regarded as having a great advantage. We can see one use for
thought experiments: as a way of testing a moral theory by considering how it fares against our moral
intuitions. If it agrees with our moral intuitions, then for you it is intuitive, if not it is counterintuitive. Moral
intuitions can be used in at least four ways: to support a theory, to provide counterexamples, to set a puzzle
about our moral thinking, and to develop a moral argument.
Special moral arguments:
− Universalization -> Suppose you are considering some course of action that you know normally elicits
disapproval from those around you. One way of testing whether the action is right or wrong is to ask: what
if everyone did that?
− Fact/value distinction -> There seems to be an important distinction between the facts that are involved in
ordinarily life or in science and the values that we deal with in moral philosophy. The fact/value distinction
is often regarded as a line that should not be crossed. Example: same sex marriage. Opponents point out
that throughout human history marriage has always been between people of different sexes. Advocates
argued that this historical fact tells us nothing about what we ought to do. There is a possible gap between
what happens (what is) and what is right (what ought to be). Hume points out that moving from an is to an
ought leaves a gap in the argument. Whether or not there is such a boundary between describing that
world that is and making a normative claim about how we ought to behave, we must be alert to the
possibility that some philosophers might try to deduce moral conclusion from factual premises. If we do
observe such a form of argument, we need to be careful as we try to understand how the transition from is
to ought is made.
− Slippery slope -> Although an act is relatively innocent or defensible in itself, allowing it will lead to more
serious unacceptable versions of the same thing. To avoid slippery slopes, we should refuse to take the
first step. Example: while one adult may say that allowing a teenager a small drink of beer with a meal is
harmless, another may reply that this is not a good idea because it creates a habit. The slippery slope
argument is not logically beyond question (because one beer will not necessarily lead to problem teenage
drinking), but it does have some force. A slippery slope argument depends on one thing leading to another
and there being no natural stopping point.
− Doctrine of double effect -> Often used in ethics of war. Most of us would say that killing innocent human
beings is wrong and can’t be justified. But this leaves us in difficulty when thinking about tactics of warfare.
The doctrine of double effect, in its basic form, says that we are morally responsible not for all the deaths
, we foresee but for those we intend. Normally there is some notion of proportionality incorporated
whenever the doctrine of double effect is employed and that proportionality in turn becomes a matter of
interpretation. Without this doctrine, it is hard to see how fighting a war in which even a single innocent
person can be predicted to die can be justified. The argument has application outside of war -> abortion.
Biases in reasoning
Framing -> for example leading questions: was the defendant behaving in an aggressive fashion instead of how
was the defendant behaving.
Confirmation bias -> the tendency to pay attention primarily to the evidence that supports the position you
already hold. Example: in a debate about immigration, people who are opposed to immigration will pay
attention to stories of crimes by immigrants, or statistics that correlate immigration with falling wages,
unemployment and failing social services. Those in favour of immigration will find studies in which none of
these effects were observed, as well as studies pointing out that immigrants to the US are more law-abiding,
than those born in the US or that health care services depend on workers from abroad. Both sides can support
their argument with evidence, but the problem is that they look only at evidence that supports their position.
This is confirmation bias. This is the reason that scientists insist that evidence needs to be surveyed by a neutral
methodology and experiments use double-blind testing.
Chapter 2: Cultural Relativism
The variety of moral practices
Even within our current times, there is a good degree of variation in ordinary social practices. Customs of
personal conduct differ, too. Just as good manners or etiquette differ in different parts of the world.
It would be dogmatic to insist that one culture has the right idea and another has got it wrong. But if one
culture permits every capable adult to drive and another refuses to allow women this liberty, are we really
prepared to brush this off as an idiosyncrasy of cultural difference? Is one country making a moral error? Some
will insist that no person from one culture has the right to judge what happens in another, proposing that just
as rules of etiquette vary from culture to culture, so do moral norms.
Objectivism or cultural relativism?
There are two ways to look at the fact of moral variation. One is to say that moral truth always corresponds to
a particular culture or tradition and that there is no basis for saying that one is superior to others -> cultural
relativism or moral relativism. The other is to insist that a certain set of practices is the true or correct moral
standpoint and all others are in error -> universalism.
Universalism is the view that the same values hold for all people, in all places, and at all times. It is often based
on a deeper philosophical view, objectivism, which claims that not only are moral values universal, but that
they reflect facts about the world which are not dependent on human decisions or practices. Because we’re
looking at the nature of moral value, we are talking about meta-ethics.
Some philosophers have argued that objectivism is the intuitive view built into our ordinarily moral thought.
Most people naturally make assumptions about the nature of moral value without having much of a sense that
they are operating in the field of meta-ethics. Some commonly made assumptions about meta-ethics that
infuse the common sense morality we tend to use in everyday life:
− Some things are morally wrong.
− Statements declaring the moral status of certain actions are straightforwardly either true or false.
− It is possible to know that some things are morally right and some things are morally wrong.
− If people do things that they know to be wrong, then it is right to blame or criticize them for doing so.
− It is generally possible for those who have acted wrongly to have acted in some other way.
It can be hard to pin down what it really means to believe that some things are right and some things are
wrong. Like being kind to strangers is good. Good is a value and objectivism in ethics presupposes that values
are real and therefore in some sense exist in the world. The view that values exist in the world, independently
of what human beings think of them is known as moral realism. But what does it mean for values to exist in this
objective sense? Plato believed that we can discover the nature of objective values by the use of reason. Plato
describes the nature of objective values through the idea of the form of the good. As a first step, we can think
of the form of the good as what it is that all good things have in common. The form of the good seems to be
something like a definition of good. Plato argues that we will never experience pure good on earth, because
any good action or person will have some imperfection. Plato concludes that the forms must exist in some
