Transcript Facts and Values

FACTS AND VALUES
1
Extrinsic value vs. Intrinsic value

If something has an intrinsic value, it has the
value by itself.


It has the value not because it can be used as a
means to acquire any other things.
If something has an extrinsic value, it has
the value because it can be used as a means
to acquire other things that have value.

E.g., money, pen, computer, chair (actually most
artifacts)
2
Some Kinds of Intrinsic Values

Personal


Aesthetical


E.g., I like spicy food, and you hate spicy food.
E.g., I like classical music, and you like pop
music.
Ethical/Moral

E.g., Killing is wrong, and helping others is good.
3
Factual Statements vs. Moral
Statements

Factual Statements



Represent states of affairs of the world.
Represent relations between states of affairs of
the world—natural laws.
We determine their truth by observation or
experiments.
4

Moral statements


Represent and express our moral values on
actions or characters.
Prescribe actions



e.g. You should not play Facebook all day long.
Moral laws prescribe actions to everyone.
How can we determine their truth?
5

Which of the following are moral statements?







You can save her life.
This action is offensive.
Cleaning this toilet is your responsibility.
Everyone has a right to freedom of speech.
The factory should reduce its damage to the
environment.
She has made a promise to help him.
He is very sad because his wife has left him.
6
Relations bet. factual statements
and moral statements

Can factual statements deduce moral
statements?


Does “John is the father of the child” deduce
“John should take care of the child?
Does “You can save the child from drowning”
deduce “You should save the child from
drowning?”
7


Some philosophers think that no factual
statements by themselves can deduce value
statements.
According to them, if you attempt to deduce
a value statement from a factual statement,
you commit a “categorical fallacy.”
8


However, it seems that some factual
statements can deduce value statement.
E.g.:


“This being has high intelligence” deduces “This
being has a right to live.”
“You are not able to do X” deduces “You should
not promise to do X.”
9

Can moral statements entail factual
statements?


Does the statement “Superman is courageous”
presupposes such facts about Superman?
Does “You ought to help her” entail “You can
help her”?
10

It is likely that every value statement
implies certain factual statements.
11
Two Kinds of Moral Judgment

Assessment of Persons:


We make moral judgments on a person’s
character based on her actions.
Attributes include:



good/neutral/bad (evil)
Ethical/neutral/unethical
Moral/neutral/immoral
12

Assessment of Actions:


We also apply the attributes we apply to a
person to an action.
But we have special attributes for actions:


right/neutral/wrong (a matter of degree)
morally permissible/morally impermissible (a
matter of all-or-nothing)
13
Exercise

Translate the following statements in terms
of moral permissibility:



It is not wrong to do X.
Everyone should X.
It is right to do X.
14
Assessment of Persons

We Judge a person’s character based on her
intentions behind her actions.

E.g.:

If Peter helps others for their own sake and Paul
helps others for getting return, Peter is a better
person than Paul.
15
Assessment of Actions


We judge the goodness/badness of actions
based on their intention.
E.g.:


If you try to help me fix my computer for my
own sake but you fail in fixing it, your action is
still good.
If you help me fix my computer in order to get
my help in the future, you action is neutral.
16

More examples:



A white racist sells poisonous wine in order to kill many
blacks.
A man sells wine in order to earn money although he
knows that the wine is poisonous.
A man sells poisonous wine in order to earn money and
he does not know that the wine is poisonous. But he
should know this fact given the information available to
him (e.g., he would know this if he investigated the
source of wine.)
17


The actions are bad in different degrees because
the agents have different intentions.
In fact, the persons’ intentions determine what
their actions are, murder or manslaughter.
18


We also judge the goodness/badness of
actions based on their consequences.
E.g.:


If you can save someone’s life with a small
sacrifice, letting her die is bad even if you do no
intend her death.
Stealing is bad even if the thief does not intend
the victim to suffer.
19




We judge the rightness/wrongness of an action
based on its consequences.
Good consequences include saving lives and
enhancing happiness or well-being.
Evil consequences include causing death, pain,
suffering, etc.
If an action is not wrong, it must result in more
good than evil.
+ E.g.: An action that saves 1 person but kills 2 persons is
impermissible.
20

However, the rightness/wrongness of an action
does not depend on its actual consequences.



E.g.: Drunk driving is morally impermissible even if it has not
harmed anyone luckily.
Rather, it depends on the action’s rationally
expected consequences.
This is because when we talk about
“rightness/wrongness,” we are concerned with
actions at the level of policy.
21


Philosophers are still debating whether the
rightness/wrongness (or moral
permissibility) of an action depends on the
intention behind the action.
We will exam this issue under the topic of
“Thought Experiments”.
22

The rightness/wrongness of an action also
depends on whether it preserve or violate
others’ rights (權利).

Actions not violating others’ rights are not
wrong.
23

However, an action may still not be wrong even
if it violates or limits someone’s rights in order
to protect others’ rights.


E.g., abortion may not be wrong even if it violates the
right to life of the fetus.
E.g., In order to protect the rights of minorities, the
government may limit certain rights (e.g., the right of
speech and the right of ownership) of the majority.
24

Different kinds of rights

Liberties



To say that a man has a right in the sense of a liberty is to
say that no one can demand him not to do the thing which
he has right to do.
E.g.: One has a liberty right to use a public area, such as a
campsite in the country park.
However, preventing others from using the area by
preoccupying it is permissible.
25

Claim-rights


Positive rights
 if someone has a positive right to X, others have a
(positive) duty provide X to her.
 I.e.: It is wrong to fail to provide X to her.
Negative rights
 if someone has a negative right to X, others have a
(negative) duty not to prevent her from getting X.
 I.e.: It is wrong to prevent her from getting X.
26
Moral Arguments


A moral argument is an argument the
conclusion of which is a moral statement.
To argue the moral permissibility of an
action is to form a moral argument.
27
4 Types of Moral Arguments
1.
Arguments based on moral principle

Structure:
Action a has feature X (e.g., killing an innocent person).
Principle: It is immoral to do something with feature X.
Therefore: a is immoral.

Problem: it is difficult to find a principle
without exceptions.
28
2. Arguments based on good-and-evil caculus.


Actions resulting in more evil than good are
wrong.
However, some actions resulting in more good
than evil are still judged to be morally
impermissible.

E.g.: Killing a person in order to use his organs to
save 5 people is wrong.
29
3. Arguments based on rights

E.g.: Same-sex marriage should be recognized
because (1) its recognition does not violate
anyone’s rights and (2) homosexuals should
have the same rights as heterosexuals.
30
4. Arguments from analogy

We will discuss this in the next topic.
31