1 / 19

Moral Reasoning

Moral Reasoning. Are there objective moral truths?. Objectivist position – moral truths are objective in that they exist apart from whether or not we acknowledge them.

randi
Download Presentation

Moral Reasoning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Moral Reasoning

  2. Are there objective moral truths? • Objectivist position – moral truths are objective in that they exist apart from whether or not we acknowledge them. • The refusal to believe in physical laws (the boiling point of water) does not change the fact that the water boils at 212 degrees.

  3. Objectivist position • Analogy from physical sciences used to clarify the position in morality; • For example: a person may say that certain actions are morally acceptable, but it does not make them right.

  4. Moral Relativist Position • States that there are no fixed values or moral code in morality; • Values in general change from individual to individual.

  5. Typical Expressions of Moral Relativism Have you ever heard these expressions? Maybe you have used them yourself? • What’s true for you is not true for me. • Morality is a matter of personal opinion. • We can’t judge another person’s morality. • All societies have different moralities.

  6. Dangers of objectivist and relativist positions • Objectivists: must guard against intolerance; By seeing one and only one morally correct answer – run the risk of failing to appreciate cultural diversity; • Relativists: run the risk of reducing all moral decisions to statements of preference, rather than truth.

  7. Are some actions always immoral to perform? • Two different understandings of moral rules: 1) Believing that certain actions are immoral by their very nature and consequently can never be justified: Do not kill the innocent; Do not rape; Do not steal; Do not commit adultery; etc.

  8. Are some actions always immoral to perform? 2) Utilitarians – regard rules as valuable, but dispensable moral guidelines; • To them, rules represent the sum total of our collective moral wisdom, however, rules can never cover every situation and must be broken if they prevent the greatest good for the greatest number

  9. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct. • Critics of utilitarianism – without absolute prohibitions – people can justify any number of immoral actions by appealing to some “greater good”.

  10. Problems with UtilitarianismThe Physician with 5 Patients • You are a physician with 5 patients under your care: • One needs a heart transplant • Two need a lung transplant • Ones needs a liver • One needs a kidney • A healthy bachelor comes in needing an immunization. • As a utilitarian physician, you do a utility calculation, and conclude that you could do the most good by killing the healthy bachelor and giving your five patients his organs.

  11. How are legitimate exceptions determined? • For some prohibition against stealing is absolute; All forms of stealing are wrong. • If we regard stealing as being wrong in most cases, we are willing to recognize a certain limited number of cases as being exceptions to the rule.

  12. How are legitimate exceptions determined? • A person weighs the rule against the circumstance where the rule is broken; • If the situation is desperate enough, then rule can be violated; • The circumstances surrounding the act greatly influence our moral evaluation.

  13. Circumstances influencing the moral evaluation: • There is a difference between: • First degree murder and killing in self defense; • Although both actions result in the death of another human being, we offer different moral evaluations of them.

  14. Two steps identifying exceptions 1) A rule or a principle is identified: do not kill; 2) Exceptions of that rule are listed; A common exception to the rule – the protection of innocent third party or oneself from unjust aggressor;

  15. Are certain actions unnatural? “Natural Law argument” – despite outward differences in terms of size, shape, color, etc. all humans share a common human nature. Natural law ethicists argue that it is in our very nature to want to: • Acquire knowledge; • Establish a just society; • Have a family.

  16. Natural Law argument • These built in goals or purposes of human activity – used to offer moral evaluations of human behavior. • For example: all humans have a natural drive for self-preservation, meaning, that natural thing to do for any person is struggle and fight for survival.

  17. Difference between “unnatural” and “sinful” Why suicide is considered wrong: 1) a violation of a natural drive towards self-preservation; 2) a violation of the commandment against murder;

  18. Role of reason • We are filled with all kinds of natural inclinations; • Should we act on all of them? No. • Reason becomes the main arbiter to identify which natural inclinations are moral/ immoral.

  19. Criticism of Natural Law Argument • What is regarded as “natural behavior” often equated with what is “socially accepted”; • It creates certain prejudices: • Segregation – ordered by nature; • Woman’s natural place – home.

More Related