Transcript Philosophy 220

Philosophy 220
Introducing Moral
Theory
(and the Topic of
Sexual Morality)
The Role of Reasons

A fundamental feature of philosophy’s contribution
to our understanding of the contested character of
our moral lives is the insistence that our responses
to moral concerns must be justified.


That is, we must have reasons for believing what we do about various
aspects of our sexuality or any other moral issue.
Though we often assume that the mere fact that we
believe something, or that it is commonly believed.
or that some authority tells us to believe it is reason
enough, philosophy rejects this.
What Counts as a Reason?


As we will see, many sorts of reasons can and are
offered in a philosophical justification of a moral claim,
but an essential element of any philosophical attempt to
provide morally justifying reasons is the appeal to moral
theory.
In order to understand what a moral theory is and how
moral theories do the justifying work required, we have
to address these questions.




What concepts do moral theories rely on?
What do moral theories aim to provide?
How and why do moral theories employ moral principles?
How are moral theories structured?
The Right And The Good
All moral theories employ and deploy
these two main concepts.
 “Right” and it’s inverse “Wrong” are
typically used to evaluate actions.
 “Good” and it’s inverse “Bad” typically
assess the value of agents, experiences,
things or states of affairs.

Right/Wrong Action

The concept “Right” has both a narrow
and a broad meaning.
Narrowly, right actions are those we are
morally obligated to do.
 Broadly, right actions are all actions that are
not wrong.


The concept “Wrong” has only one
meaning.
Tripartite Deontic Schema

Given these accounts of the rightness and
wrongness of actions, ethicists typically divide
the realm of actions for purposes of moral
evaluation into three basic categories.
Obligatory
Actions
Permissible
Actions
Forbidden
Actions
Good and Bad: Moral Value


When we identify something or someone as good or
bad, we are speaking to its character, and particularly of
that value that it has.
Things can have or be valuable in one of two ways.



Intrinsic value refers to a character or feature inherent in the
thing.
Extrinsic value refers to how a thing is related to some other
valuable thing (ultimately one with intrinsic value).
Intrinsic value is what philosophers are typically
concerned with.
Tripartite Axiological Schema

Given the importance of intrinsic value we
can once again identify three basic value
categories.
Intrinsically
Good
Intrinsically
Value-Neutral
Intrinsically
Bad
A Theory of the Right and the
Good


In light of this, we can define Moral Theory as
the systematic investigation into the nature of
the right and the good with the aim of guiding
moral judgment.
As such, we can identify three tasks that a
moral theory must accomplish.



MT must identify the right-making features of actions.
MT must provide an account of intrinsic value.
MT must specify how these accounts can serve as the
basis for the justification of specific moral conclusions.
Two Main Aims of Moral Theory

These three tasks of moral theory provide us
with the means of distinguishing two main aims.


The theoretical aim (corresponding to first two tasks) is to
identify the underlying features of actions, persons and
other morally relevant elements that make them right or
wrong, good or bad. In other words, MTs have to account
for what makes something morally relevant.
The practical aim (corresponding to the third) is to be
action-guiding. In other words, to provide us with
resources with which to respond to the moral issues
which confront us.
Taking Aim with Moral Principles


The product of moral theories that philosophers
use to satisfy these aims is the moral principle.
A moral principle is a general statement of the
right-making characteristics of actions or the
specification of intrinsic value.


Principles that focus on actions are called “Principles
of Right Conduct.”
Principles that focus on intrinsic value are called
“Principles of Value.”
What About the Second Aim?
PRC and PV certainly seem to satisfy the
theoretical aim of MTs, but what about the
practical aim?
 The operative presumption is that if the
principles are correct, then employing the
principles to evaluate proposed actions or
possible values provides justifying
reasons for moral decision making.

Conflict of the Principles



Though all MTs have to include both a PRC and
a PV, typically these principles are not equal in
any given theory.
Some theories make the Good more important
than the Right, some the Right more important
than the Good.
The former are called “Value-based MTs” the
latter are called “Duty-Based MTs.”
A Plurality of Theories



Given that different moral theories emphasize different
values, you shouldn’t be surprised that when we start
looking at specific theories, we will find that they
highlight different features of our moral lives.
In many cases, these differences mask an essential
continuity in moral evaluations, but on occasion there
will be important evaluative differences.
We need to consider how we should evaluate the
differing claims of the moral theories we will study.
Evaluating Ethical Theories


In addition to a consideration of the adequacy of the arguments offered
in support of a particular theory, there are a number of features which a
successful ethical theory must exhibit.
The two central features correspond to the two main aims of moral
theory

Corresponding to the theoretical aim is the standard of explanatory
power: a theory should help us understand our moral evaluations.
The better the explanation, the better the theory.
•
You know murder is wrong. Now ask yourself why? That’s a harder question to
answer than it might at first seem, and moral theory can fill in the explanatory gap.
Corresponding to the practical aim is the standard of practical
guidance: a theory should help us make the morally correct choices.
The better the guidance, the better the theory.

•
If you are faced with the challenge of having to help a friend decide whether or not
to have an abortion, you need a theory that provides determinate, consistent and
actionable verdicts.
The Example of Ethics By Authority


We can begin to appreciate the value of these
evaluative principles by putting them to work
in a consideration of a popular, but not
necessarily successful, approach to moral
theory.
“Ethics by Authority” refers to a family of
approaches to moral justification which share
the insistence that all the moral explanation
and guidance we need can be located in
some “authority.”
Divine Command Theory



DCT is one example of an authority based moral theory.
The key claim of DCT is that, “An action is right if and only
if [iff] (and because) God does not command that we not
do that action” (p. 31).
One of the virtues of this approach is that it does satisfy
MT’s practical aim.


The 10 commandments don’t leave a lot of wiggle room.
However, it does nothing to satisfy the explanatory aim.


Why should we honor our parents?
To say that “it pleases God” just pushes the question back a level.
Why does/should it please God? God’s willing it is no explanation of
why it is the right thing to will. Insisting that God is good doesn’t
help. After all, goodness is a moral quality which still needs an
explanation.
Ethical Relativism



ER is another example.
It’s key claim is, “An action (performed by a
member of Group G) is right iff the moral norms
accepted by G permit the performance of the
action” (p. 32).
Like with DCT, ER seems appropriately actionguiding, but it doesn’t do any better job with the
MT’s theoretical aim.


Why should the fact that a majority of some members of a group
believe that the death penalty is morally acceptable make it so?
Most Europeans used to believe that the earth was flat, but that didn’t
make it so.
What have we seen?



Our consideration of DCT and ER has revealed that
these two very common “moral theories” do not satisfy
the evaluative constraints which moral theories should
satisfy.
At the very least, this fact calls into question the ability
of these two ways of thinking about morality to do the
work we ask of moral theories.
As we turn in the next unit to other theoretical
approaches, let’s keep this lesson in mind and ask
ourselves if they do a better job of satisfying the
fundamental aims of moral theory.
Sexual Morality: Some Helpful
Distinctions


Though we are more familiar with their use as political
labels, the terms “Conservative,” “Liberal,” and
“Moderate” are frequently used in moral theoretical
discussions of a range of moral issues.
In the context of Moral Theory, these terms refer not to
political ideologies, but accounts of how narrow or wide
the range of permissible behavior is.
• In MT, conservative positions tend to advocate a very narrow range
of acceptable behavior, liberals a wide range, while moderates fall
somewhere in the middle.
The Range of Sexual Behavior


In the context of sexual morality, conservatives,
moderates and liberals tend to disagree about the sorts
of relationships in which sexual behavior is permissible.
Conservatives tend to restrict sexual behavior to
married couples. A more moderate person may argue
that sex is permissible if the people are in love. A liberal
on sexual matters is likely to argue that more general
restrictions on human interactions (for example: don’t
hurt people) are the only constraints on sexual
interactions.
A Few Caveats

Remember, these labels are not the same as the political
ones, even when there are obvious points of overlap.
• Some political conservatives will also be sexually conservative, but
not necessarily. Some political liberals will be sexually liberal, but
not necessarily.


These labels do not always map straightforwardly on to
questions of alternate sexual behaviors (like pornography or
prostitution).
Different representatives of these positions are not always in
agreement with each other.
• One sexual liberal may think adultery acceptable, another not.