Transcript Premises

Ethics Review
Via the Euthyphro
What does Euthyphro
think?
Suppose Socrates asks only because
he thinks piety is whatever the
individual believes it is.
For Euthyphro, piety is whatever
Euthyphro thinks it is.
• What position would this be?
Subjectivism
Benedict argued for this position by
observing that notions of normality
and abnormality vary amongst
cultures.
She claimed these notions point to
a culture’s view of right and wrong.
• Socrates was executed for impiety.
• He allegedly corrupted the youth
by getting them to question the
values of the state, among other
things.
• Using Benedict’s terminology, this
means the Athenians regarded
Socrates as what?
Argument from Deviance/Abnormality
• 1. A culture’s view of normality shows what it values.
• 2. Different cultures see different behaviors as abnormal.
• 3. Because of 2, there is no universal conception of normal and
abnormal.
• 4. Thus, there is no universal, culturally independent, value (or set of
values).
• What are 1 through 3 called here? What is 4?
Arguments – A collection
of evidence to support a
conclusion
Premises – Evidence to support a
conclusion.
A Conclusion – What one seeks to establish
In this argument 1 through 3 are premises.
The conclusion is 4.
There is no maximum limit to the number
of premises an argument may have, though
there is a minimum. There must be at least
one premise and one conclusion.
.
• Only premises can be true or false.
• Arguments can be valid or invalid,
sound or unsound.
• What does this stuff mean?
James Rachels
Benedict’s argument is invalid and unsound.
The conclusion does not follow from the
premises. It is invalid.
The premise is false. Even if it were valid, it
would be unsound.
• Validity is about structure.
• A deductively valid argument has
a truth preserving structure.
• A deductively valid argument can
have false premises.
• Validity is the low bar
There is less
disagreement than it
seems.
If Rachels is right to say this, the
premise in the argument for
Relativism is false.
• Soundness is about structure and
content
• Sound arguments must be both
valid and have all true premises
• Soundness is the high bar for
having a cogent argument.
• What is smaller than a culture?
Subjectivism – There are
no truths in ethics; there
are only individual
opinions.
If moral laws exist independent of
sentient beings, they must have
been pre-determined to exist. Predetermination is incompatible with
our understanding of the world. So,
the moral laws were not destined to
exist. Thus, moral laws do not exist
independent of sentient beings.
• <- What are the premises over
there?
• What is the conclusion?
• If the conclusion must follow from
the premises, the argument is
what?
Divine Command Theory
If God commands it, then it is right.
If it is right, then God commands it.
• This is the subjective horn.
• Morality depends only on God’s
opinion.
• “God is good” loses its
significance. (Why?)
• This is the objective horn.
• Morality no longer depends
upon God.
• This seems to be a rejection of
the Divine Command Theory
Natural Law Theory
• Distinct from Divine Command Theory.
• Laws are written into nature. God must change nature to change the
laws; he cannot just issue new commands.
• Determining the proper function of things will tell us how to behave.
Problems
• 1. Laws describe how things behave.
• Moral laws are normative: they tell us how we should behave.
• 2. How can we derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’?
• The fact that the purpose of something is to X does not entail that we
ought to use that thing only to X.