Question: Now that you have worked your ways through the elements of the course, this is the place, as the title suggests, to see ways to "bring it all together" and to integrate and synthesize the co
Week 1, Reading Section 1.1: Introduction
I. Introduction
Welcome to the World of Contemporary Ethical and Moral Issues and Decision-making! When confronted with a moral problem, have you ever weighed the expected results against the costs? Have you ever been frustrated by an argument that didn't make sense to you, but you didn't know why? Have you ever listened to politicians give answers to questions that weren't answers at all and been annoyed when there was no follow up by the interviewer? Have you ever tried to explain to a child why doing something unpleasant is actually for his or her own good?
Congratulations! You have been applying the skills of Moral Philosophy and Ethics. Before taking this course, you might have known the terminology, concepts, and ideas involved in Philosophy, in general, and in Ethics and Moral Philosophy, in particular. But chances are that you did not yet know the technical “lingo” that Philosophers have been bandying about for more than two millennia. Nevertheless, you were “doing” Moral Philosophy!
A. Introduction to Key Concepts
Now, you will learn that “lingo” and terminology, which will distinguish you as an educated person! In this first section, we shall see some of the vocabulary of Moral Philosophy, starting with the word, “Philosophy,” itself. “Philosophy” comes from two Greek words, “philein,” and “sophia.” The first is one of several words in Greek that mean “love.” (In Greek, there are different words for different kinds of “love.”) The second means “wisdom.” Thus, Philosophy means a “love of wisdom.” And that applies to wisdom in all aspects of life.
Resource: How Should We Decide Right from Wrong? [PDF]
Next, is “Logic.” For those Star Trek fans among you, you know that this is the sub-discipline that saved Vulcans from killing each other. On a more serious note, Logic is the language of Philosophy, based on Reason. It provides the vocabulary, grammar, and structure of Philosophical Discourse, in Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Argument/Rhetoric. All are important in Moral Philosophy.
Resource: Logic [PDF]
A few words on each. What is “Metaphysics”? It is the field of Philosophy that delves into “Being”; what exists; what is non-existent; the meaning of both, Existence and Non-Existence. “Epistemology” deals with Theories of Knowledge. It asks the questions: what do you know? How do you know it? What are your sources of Knowledge? What are the processes of acquiring Knowledge? Finally, there is “Argument,” which is the method of presenting a position to an audience, for the purpose of persuading the members of the audience of the validity of the position.
Resource: Argument
All these fields were invented by Aristotle, the student of Plato and his Academy. And Aristotle’s theories, based on Reason, were imported into Western Thought, by Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century. (Plato’s theories had been imported by Augustine in the Fifth Century.)
1. Ethics and Important Theorists
Ethics and Moral Philosophy ask the questions: What should we do in life, when faced with ethical or moral problems/dilemmas, and how can we justify our choices? In the latter instance, that’s where Argument./Rhetoric become essential. As you will see, throughout the course, this is an on-going process, and life is full of moral issues and dilemmas on a daily basis. Some are simple, and some are much more complex.
Throughout the course, you will encounter these leading theorists: Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum, W.D. Ross, and Harriet Taylor, to name a few. Kant was the Philosopher who invented Deontological Thought. Deontology argues that results, alone, do not make an action moral. One must reason the right thing to do, must recognise a Duty to do it, and must always do the right thing. In addition, Kant argued that we should always treat our fellow human beings as ends-in-themselves and NEVER as means. Deontology is a Non-Consequentialist theory. The more-recent Philosophers, John Rawls , W.D. Ross, and Martha Nussbaum, tend to be more like Kant, but Non-Absolutist, while Kant believed that there could be no exceptions to doing that right thing in all situations.
Jeremy Bentham, David Hume, Harriet Taylor, and John Stuart Mill were Utilitarians. Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist school of moral thought, which argues that results are what make an action moral, regardless of the intentions of the Actor. Under Utilitarianism, the goal is to reduce pain in the world; put another way, the goal is to maximise happiness for the greatest number of people, who will be affected by the action, even if the interests of a few have to be sacrificed in the process. These two schools, Non-Consequentialism and Consequentialism, will be ever-present in the course.
2. Introduction to Moral and Ethical Reasoning
Let’s consider the questions with which you were confronted above, once more. Have you ever been frustrated by an argument that didn't make sense to you, but you didn't know why? Have you ever listened to politicians give answers to questions that weren't answers at all and been annoyed when there was no follow up by the interviewer? Have you ever tried to explain to a child why doing something unpleasant is actually for his or her own good?
In the first case, you may have encountered an invalid argument but did not realize it because the pieces all seemed to make sense. In the second case, you may have listened to an exchange in which the interviewer didn't uncover reasoning errors made by the speaker, perhaps due to the speaker's charm and oratorical skill. In the third case, you may have been trying to construct a valid and sound argument based on premises that, although true, were beyond the child's limited comprehension.
As these examples demonstrate, we all deal with arguments every day. Many of us, however, may never have learned what goes into a well-built argument, or how to construct arguments based on premises grounded in our most basic beliefs. The very sound of the word argument may be unpleasant to some. It should be noted that Rhetoric defines “Arguments,” not as disagreements, but as conclusions about an issue supported by reasons. It is interesting to note that the word argument in common parlance has a disagreeable connotation, as a fight, just as rhetoric, once considered the art of persuasion and a valued part of a classical education, now has the pejorative sense of mere words. One might ask how these negative associations reflect contemporary society's value of careful thought, logic, and well-constructed presentations of arguments.
To make truly conscious decisions on ethical matters, we must know and be firmly grounded in our ethical principles, carefully weigh all of the facts involved, and come to conclusions based on a process of reasoning —a process of argumentation—that often will also have to take emotion into account. Before that process can occur, however, we must examine our conscience and beliefs to be sure that our most basic and foundational principles are clear. These principles constitute our ethical theory.
This examination is a never-ending process for the most thoughtful people, but it rarely (if ever) occurs. Fortunately, this course gives you an opportunity to examine your principles and how you apply them. It is hoped that this exercise will enable you to make better decisions and better understand the ethical nuances in everything you see around you, well after you have forgotten the minutiae of this course.
Throughout the course, not only in this week's reading, you should return to the form and structure of arguments. As you read and formulate positions and arguments, review the basic elements of a sound and valid argument. The more you practice, the more your command of the terms and usages will improve and become second-nature. Consider this as a recurring theme within all of the remaining readings.
Week 1, Reading Section 1.2: Moral and Ethical Reasoning
II. Moral & Ethical Reasoning, In-depth
A. Ethical Theories and their Significance
In their leading text on ethics, Shaw and Barry (2004, 22) state that "[i]f a moral judgment is defensible, then it must be supportable by a defensible moral standard, together with relevant facts." These sound moral principles provide a necessary, but insufficient framework for making moral judgments and decisions alone. To have a sufficient framework, we need sound moral principles, careful thought and reflection, and technical skill in argument building and analysis. Together, these enable us to work from general principles to specific judgments and actions. It is not enough, for example, to want to be a great mother (sound principle). One has to make that principle specific by defining what actions qualify a woman as a great mother and determining how to carry out those actions.
Unfortunately (or maybe not), there is no general agreement on what "sound moral principles" are. As noted, above, ethical theories break down into two major groups:
consequentialist ethics, or ethics based on the results of actions
nonconsequentialist ethics, or ethics based not on results, but on the proper motivation for action
As you read the theories in these two groups, ask yourself which type you adhere to and why. Is the most important thing in determining the goodness of an action whether or not it produces a good result for you personally (egoism) or for a large number of people (consequentialist)? Is the determining factor of moral goodness a person's motivation to act regardless of whether or not that person succeeds in carrying out the action in question (nonconsequentialist)?
Although the latter possibility may sound odd, we can easily find a number of examples in which the motivation behind an act can give the act (or attempted act) its ethical value. Examples include: a person who dives into a river to save a child, whether or not that person is actually able to save the child's life, because human life is of inestimable value, someone who speaks out against a dictator's rule, only to lose his life without having had any effect on the dictator's grasp of power, because the unjust use of power should always be opposed
Subsets of these two schools of thought include the following: psychological and ethical egoism, Rule and Act Utilitarianism, Kant's Deontological ethics, prima facie ethics. Don't worry if these terms mean nothing to you yet, but be sure after your reading that you can define and compare these ethical theories. You will find the readings helpful in this regard, both in their analyses of the theories and in discussions of problems with each theory.
Try to determine what your own ethical theory is and what forms the basis of that theory. You may formulate that theory here (no one else will see what you write) and come back to it periodically throughout the course to determine whether it has changed or become more nuanced.
As you read, and in your post-reading review, think about the larger social context and significance of each theory: What kind of society is presupposed by each theory? What kind of society would result if that theory were predominant? Is there a difference between acting on principles (Kantian Non-Consequentialism), on results (Consequentialism), or on notions of "virtue?" What is the difference between principles and "virtues?"
Are values innate in individuals, before and/or after practice, and acted upon from habit? How does conscious intention to "do the right thing" play into the equation? If people act only from habit, is that particularly more laudable than someone who acts upon conscious principle and conviction, exhibiting courage in the face of opposition? Does human failure to "live up to one's values" suggest that people do both good and bad things? Does doing a bad thing one moment make a person a "bad person"? Does doing a good thing the next moment make that same person "good"?
These are the sorts of dilemmas that we encounter in the application of theories. This is why critical thinking skills are so important. Looking forward to future Commentaries, you will note that we will be moving to the political, legal, and social framework of Contemporary Moral Issues ethics.
B. Argumentation and Critical Thinking
1. Moral and Ethical Reasoning and Argument
Sherry Diestler, in her important text, Becoming a Critical Thinker, defines a critical thinker as "someone who uses specific criteria to evaluate reasoning and make decisions." These criteria include a careful examination of value and reality assumptions. They also include having the ability to recognize good deductive reasoning (which, in a structure of argument called a syllogism, works from a major and minor premise to a specific conclusion) and good inductive reasoning (which works from a number of specifics to a general conclusion).
Again, don't worry if you don't know what these terms mean before you complete your reading, but be sure after your reading that you understand these types of reasoning and how they work. In particular, be sure that you can explain what validity in deductive argumentation means: what the proper form of an argument is, how syllogisms are constructed, what modus ponens, modus tollens, and chain arguments are and why they are valid, why arguments that are invalid are judged to be so. Note the difference between a valid argument (which is technically correct even if the premises are false) and a sound argument (which is a valid argument with true premises).
The following is an example of a valid but unsound argument:
All trees have leaves.
The pine is a tree.
Therefore, the pine has leaves.
Although this argument can easily be seen as unsound, it is valid because it follows proper form. In determining the ethically appropriate response to a situation, we should attempt to construct sound arguments. Unfortunately, deductive arguments are most reliable when they involve proven fact and when we can know with relative certainty that premises are true. Ethical situations often involve subjectively determined premises, which make the construction of sound arguments more difficult than those of pure fact.
When dealing with other than proven fact, we must question whether or not the premises are true. A more difficult example of a valid but probably unsound argument makes this clear:
All women who are feminists are incapable of treating men fairly.
June is a feminist.
Therefore, June is incapable of treating men fairly.
We are not dealing with proven facts in the premises to this argument. Recall that facts are significant elements of sound, valid, and defensible arguments. In this example, even the definitions of "feminists" and "fair treatment" vary.
In many cases, the premises of arguments are derived from inductive reasoning, which is the use of facts and research findings to make generalizations. In everyday experience, inductive reasoning is drawing general conclusions from the observation of many instances of something. In reading about inductive reasoning, pay particular attention to the argumentation presented for drawing conclusions about cause and effect. Note the difficulty in distinguishing between correlations (two events occurring together without being related as cause and effect) and true causation (X being the cause of effect Y).
In your reading, consider the significance of assigning causality to events in the ethical and social arena that occur together but in fact are not related as cause and effect. In some cases, when we are confident that causal connections exist between action or condition X and event Y, we may conclude that we have a duty or responsibility to perform action X. On the other hand, when we are confident that only correlations exist between action or condition X and event Y, we may be compelled to speak out against injustices, blaming event Y on action or condition X.
2. Critical Thinking Skills
In approaching moral and ethical issues and problems, you should always consider the role of critical thinking skills and ways to improve your own. Rather than accepting any proposition or any statement from business, political, or media sources on its face, you should:
First, look at the terms and words of the statement. What does it mean? Second, look beneath the surface of those terms, to the speaker or writer and his or her purpose in presenting and arguing the statement. Why is the speaker making this assertion? What might be the background of the speaker that enfranchises him or her to make such an assertion? What is the agenda that the speaker or writer seeks to advance?
These and similar questions help us to identify the facts and underlying assumptions in most moral and ethical problems. They are useful tools for us to uncover the actual issues presented and to avoid diversions, which could cause us to miss the important issue(s) in the situation. Any time that you are called upon to make moral or ethical decisions, the first step will often entail the application of your critical thinking skills to identify the facts, circumstances, and issues, which will facilitate your resolution and decision-making processes. In this course, the use of critical thinking skills is a necessary concomitant to all that we do here.
C. Common Errors in Reasoning and the Need for Broadmindedness
As we all know, what seems correct in theory doesn't always work in practice. In our everyday lives, we find many examples of reasoning errors (defined by Diestler [2001] as fallacies that don't provide adequate support for the conclusions reached). We also find many examples of defensiveness, intolerance, ethnocentrism, and egocentrism in people's refusal to listen to and evaluate the reasoning of others. Be on the lookout for these errors and for the failure of arguers—including you—to be broad and fair minded in evaluating and responding to others' arguments.
Week 1, Reading Section 1.3: General Resources
III. General Resources
The following sources will provide considerable research material and additional readings, to assist you. The first is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/.
It covers a variety of subjects and issues. The second is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu . The S.E.P’s range of subjects is far more vast than the I.E.P. , but some of the articles are more in-depth and sophisticated than the I.E.P.
The third are podcasts and video lectures by Marianne Talbot of Oxford University. They can be accessed through iTunesU. You click on that tab in your iTunes, go to Colleges and Universities, thence to Oxford, and finally to Philosophy (on the right side of the page). The podcasts and videos, relevant to this course, are under the following general Collection, A Romp Through Ethics for Complete Beginners. These may be downloaded under Creative Commons licenses and are FREE, as are the I.E.P. and the Stanford Encyclopedia! There are additional lecture sets on the Oxford University Philosophy site, which can assist you in other Philosophy subject.
