[World | Home | Peacegames | Philosophy | Catalog | Site | Order]
Morality
Morality 1: Can we know right from wrong?
Challenge: We cannot know right from wrong.
Morality 2: Why should we do the right thing?
Challenge: There is no reason to do the right thing.
Morality 3: Can we hold people responsible for actions? Challenge: No-one is ever responsible.Click on the questions you want to examine. On each topic there are maps and definitions of positions, and on many topics, there are simulation games and discussion questions. Where positions on maps are highlighted, clicking on the position will take you to arguments for and against the position and also afford you the opportunity to vote for or against arguments, or to add new arguments for or against positions.
Morality 1: Map, Definitions, Exercises
How Can We Tell Right From Wrong?
Challenge: There is no way to tell right from wrong.
Map, Definitions of Position, Simulations, Discussion Questions
Choices and Definitions of Positions
Moral Judgments Vs. No Moral Judgments
Our starting position is to doubt whether we can tell right from wrong. Some views that deny the possibility of ethical philosophy are: moral skepticism, moral nihilism, and moral relativism.
All moral theories are attempts to explain how we can tell right from wrong. They all have to answer those who say that we either cannot determine good and evil or that it is pointless to try.
Views that deny the possibility of moral judgments
Moral Skeptics (01) believe that no knowledge of right and wrong is possible. The view that we have no way of telling right actions from wrong, moral good from bad.
Moral Nihilists (02) deny the validity of moral distinctions. A moral nihilists believes that there is no such thing as moral good and evil.
Moral Relativists (03) believe that ethical truths are relative. The rightness of an action or goodness of an object is determined by the attitude taken toward it by some individual or group, and this may vary from individual to individual or from group to group.
Views that accept the idea of moral judgment.
Those who believe that ethics is possible believe that we have ways of telling right from wrong. Some alternative viewpoints on how we can tell right from wrong listed below. One way to think of the contrast between these views is to picture that before a person does an action a thought process proceeds the act, then there is the act, and then there is a consequence of the action. Moral theorists differ on whether they want to judge according to the thoughts of the actor, the action, or the action's consequences.
What Should We Judge:
Intentions, Acts, Consequences, or Incentives?
Intention (04) One view holds that the moral worth of an action is determined by the motive of the actor. If the motive is good the action is good. The only morally good actions are those done for the right motives.
Incentive (05) One view holds that social behavior is determined in large part by the incentive structures of rewards and punishments and that we should judge these structures as good if they lead to desirable behavior and bad if they lead to undesirable behavior. On this view people should decide what type of behaviors they want to encourage and then establish incentives that reward those behaviors.
Consequences (06) One view holds that the basis of all moral distinctions is their usefulness in bringing about the satisfaction of desires. On this view no act is intrinsically good or bad. The best action is the one that has the best consequence.
Moral Rules (07) determine which categories of actions are right and wrong. The view that the moral value of an action depends on the type of action. Certain types of actions are always right and other types of actions are always wrong. Moral distinctions are based on general propositions that determine the value of kinds of actions in certain situations. An example is "One who make a promise ought to keep it."
Examining Rule Based Morality
If one accepts that moral rules determine the types of actions that are right or wrong then the next question is, "how can you tell what rules are correct?" Some alternative positions are:
Theological (08) - According to this view God reveals moral rules. This view assumes that "If God says it, its is correct" and also that we can know what God says.
Intuitionist (09) - According to this view we have a special intellectual capacity to know which rules are correct. Everyone knows right from wrong whether they are aware of this or not.
Consequences (10) - According to this view experience has shown that having certain rules for behavior leads to good consequences and having other rules leads to bad consequences.
Examining Consequentialist Morality
An approach that contrasts to rule based morality is consequentialism. Any consequentialist has to answer the question "Best consequences for whom?" Here are some alternatives.
Ethical Egoists (11) judge an act as good if it has a good consequence for the person doing the action.
Ethical Altruists (12) judge an act as good if it has a good consequence for people other than the person doing the act.
Ethical Egalitarians (13) judge an act as good if it has a good consequence for all affected individuals including the one doing the act.
Note:
Ethical egoism should not be confused with psychological egoism. A psychological egoist believes that people must always act in their self interest. An ethical egoist believes people should act in their self interest.
Utilitarianism (14): A Popular form of Consequentialism
One type of ethical egalitarianism that has been written about at great length is utilitarianism. Two variants of utilitarianism, act and rule, are defined below:
Act Utilitarianism (15) is the view that the best action is the one that will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Rule Utilitarianism (16) is the view that the best rule is the one that will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism: Limited Vs. Ideal
The question of best for whom still remains to be considered. Who should be included in our consideration of consequences. Some alternative positions are limited versus ideal utilitarianism.
Limited utilitarianism (17) seeks to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of a limited group, such as Americans.
Ideal utilitarianism (18) seeks to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of all the people affected by an action.
Utilitarianism: Hedonist Vs Epicurean
What do we mean by best? Do we mean pleasure? And if so, do we mean quantify of pleasure or its quality. Here are some positions on these issues.
Hedonists (19) view all pleasures as equal and judge on quantity.
Epicureans (20) view some pleasures are higher than others.
MORAL PHILOSOPHY SIMULATIONS
1. Everyone in the class is to imagine that they have been selected to make suggestions for meeting the challenge of the moral crisis. This crisis is that many people do not believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. The governmental leaders who invited you to this conference feel that morality has been ignored for too long and they want your suggestions for changing this situation.
One person - acts as moderator for the convention.
One person - acts as recorder to write ideas on the board.
The entire class suggests ideas during the first part of the class. No ideas are criticized at this stage. During the second part of the class period the ideas are examined critically by asking such questions as:
a. Are the ideas on the board consistent? Could they all be acted on?
b. Could the suggestions be implemented? Why or why not?
2. Your challenge is to convince an individual that there is right and wrong.
One person chooses to be either a moral nihilist, moral skeptic, or moral relativist. The others must guess the position chosen. This person may be an individual who does anti-social actions, such as stealing or killing, or a person who is decent for non moral reasons.
Others must try to convince the individual described above that morality exists and matters.
3. Your challenge is to convince a person that one of these rules is correct:
Abortion/ Premarital sex/ Homosexuality/ Cheating/ is wrong. The group chooses one.
One person does not agree with the moral rule chosen for examination.
Each of the other participants must respond by claiming that moral rules are based on one of the following: self evident truth, society, religion, human experience, or the consequences of following them.
Discussion Questions
1. Do you agree with this view expressed by Lao Tzu in the Book of Tao,
"It is because everyone under Heaven recognizes beauty as beauty, that the idea of ugliness exists. And equally if everyone recognized virtue as virtue, this would merely create fresh conceptions of wickedness." (Arthur Waley, The Way and Its Power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1935, p. 143).
According to this view, nothing is good or bad independent of our judging things. Lao Tsu says that people should not make judgments because, after judging evil exists. Is the evil that exists independent of our act of judging? Why do people make judgments? What would happen if no one made judgments?
2. Should we judge everything people do as good or bad? List the actions that you think should be judged and think of a principle for deciding what to judge. Should the following actions be judged: a person's blowing their nose, two consenting adults making love, a person robbing a bank?
3. List ten actions which you consider wrong to do. Think of a principle that covers the actions you list and that can be used to determine what other actions are wrong to do. Think of actions that you consider wrong to do that are not covered by your principle and revise your principle to include them. Continue to think of more actions and a principle that covers all the actions you consider wrong to do.
4. One popular principle for judging "good" and "bad" is the act utilitarian principle which states that the action that provides for the greatest good for the greatest number is best. It certainly makes sense to prefer a greater good to a lesser good, and to have a greater number of people enjoying goods than to have a lesser number. But problems arise when we consider the two factors of wealth and number enjoying the wealth. Consider the distribution schemes listed below where we have four people who receive different amount of goods under each scheme. Does act utilitarianism show us that Scheme I is preferable to Scheme II , or that Scheme I is preferred to Scheme IV.
Person Scheme.....I .....II ....III ...IV
A.....3 .....2 .....4 ......6
B .....3 .....2..... 4 .....6
C .....3..... 2 .....4 .....6
D .....3 .....2 .....0 .....0
Note that people get a greater amount of good with I than with I or II, and that I has more people enjoying the goods than does III. It would seem that I is preferable to II or III.
Is I preferable to IV? Scheme IV has a greater amount of goods with a smaller number of people receiving goods. What is preferable when we have a choice between a lesser amount of goods with a greater number enjoying goods versus a higher amount of goods with a lesser number participating in the wealth? There are real problems that involve a choice such as this. Some countries have chosen economic policies that distribute wealth more equally but that result in a smaller total wealth others prefer more wealth distributed unevenly.
5. Ethical relativists argue that the same thing may be good for one person and bad for another. Is this true of ice cream? What about the question of whether is good to kill another person? Continue the following conversation:
Relativist, "Everything is relative to the speaker. What I way is right and what you say is right."
Non-Relativist, "But I say not everything is right. If I am right in this, then you are wrong."
Relativist, "Well, it may be right for you, but it is not right for me."
Why should we the right thing?
Challenge: There is no reason to do the right thing.
Choices and Definitions of Positions
Introduction
How should we interpret the question? Are we looking for reasons why it is in our self-interest to do the right thing. Plato posed the question "why do the right thing?" in the Republic where he has Telemarchus say,
"All men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice.... If you could imagine anyone obtaining the power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or taking what was another's, he would be thought by the onlookers to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's face."
There are no reasons to be moral Vs there are reasons.
Our starting point is to doubt whether there are any reasons to be moral. Some views that deny the possibility of reasons for being moral are those of the amoralist and the immoralist.
Immoralist (01) believe that there they should do the opposite of what is moral. The immoral act is the one that is best to do.
Amoralist (02) believe that it is best to not act on morality. They do not consider whether an act is moral or immoral in deciding what to do.
Views that accept the idea of moral judgment
Those who believe that one should act morally differ on the reasons they offer for acting morally. Philosophers have come up with arguments that purport to be an improvement over some of the conventional answers to the question "why be moral?" First conventional answers to this question are listed, followed by reasons philosophers have offered.
Conventional Answers - Popular Views
Reward in heaven (03) is the view that it is reasonable to be moral because we will reap a reward in heaven after we die if we are moral.
Conscience (04) is the view that it is reasonable to be moral because our conscience will bother us if we are not moral.
It pays (05) is the view that it is reasonable to be moral because it is always to one's advantage to be moral.
Philosophers who relate morality and self-interest
Plato's Answer (06) It is in our interest to be immoral because of what immorality does to us. An immoral person cannot be happy because they are not at peace with themselves.
Hobbes's Answer (07) Thomas Hobbes argued that immorality harms society and leads to a situation of war of all against all that is intolerable. We are better off living in a society in which individuals behave morally.
Utilitarian Answer (08) Utilitarianism defines the good as what is in the interest of the greatest number of people, so it follows that a reason for doing good is to maximize human satisfaction of desires.
Philosophers who do not relate morality and self-interest.
These views assume that there are at least two motives for human action: self-interest and the desire to do one's duty.
Hutchenson-Prichard Thesis (09)- There are at least two motives for action: self interest and morality. It is a mistake to try to relate moral action to self-interest. To ask why it is in one's interest to be moral is to ask a confused question.
Immanuel Kant (10)- moral behavior is motivated by the desire to do one's duty -- not self-interest. In fact, if a person does an act for any reason of self-interest then it has no moral value. Only actions done from the desire to do one's duty are morally praiseworthy.
Moral Philosophy Simulations
1. Your challenge is to convince someone that they should do the moral thing when the moral action appears to conflict with their self-interest.
One person wants to spread a lie about a competitor to get a job.
They know that this is immoral , but want to do it anyway because they want the job.
Several participants try to convince the person described above that it is really in their interest to be moral. First do this exercise giving the conventional arguments and then do it giving the arguments that Plato and Hobbes formulated.
2. This simulation is the same as #1 only the situation considered is that of a person who wants to cheat on an examination in an instance where they think there is no chance of their getting caught.
3. The situation described above is repeated only this time those who are trying to convince the individual to forgo immoral behavior do not argue in terms of interests. They use the arguments formulated by Francis Hutchenson, H.A. Prichard, and Immanuel Kant.
4. Your challenge is to bring up children so they will be moral citizens. List suggestions on how to bring up children. Use the same format that was used for the conference above.
5. Your challenge is to reduce cheating on campus. List suggestions.
6. Your challenge is to think of way to have teenagers act more responsibly about sex so that the teenage pregnancy problem will be reduced.
7. Your challenge is to get people to give more money to help people who are starving. You feel that helping the starving is the moral thing to do and want to get people to do this moral action.
One person is head of an organization that aids the starving. This person is making a presentation to others in the attempt to get the others to donate money. Others are not convinced that they should give money.
Can We Hold People Responsible?
Challenge: No-one is ever responsible.
Views that attribute morality to corporations
Corporations are moral by analogy to moral persons (01)
According to this view to say that corporations are moral or immoral is to provide an analogy to individuals being moral or immoral. Corporations are only moral in this weak sense.
Corporations are moral persons (Corporativism) (02)
According to this view corporations are more than just fictitious persons. They have personalities and can be moral or immoral just as an individual can be moral or immoral.
Views that attribute morality to individuals (03)
According to this view individuals are at least sometimes responsible for what they do. There are various conditions that must be satisfied for us to attribute moral responsibility. The absence of any one of these conditions may provide a person an excuse from responsibility. A person may cite an excuse as a reason for being held blameless for something that happens.
Excusing Conditions
Age of consent - Moral Agent (04) There must be a moral agent for moral responsibility, a being capable of making moral choices. An infant is not a moral agent because it has not reached an age when it can make decisions, or the age of consent.
Control of self (05) A person cannot be held responsible if that person has no control of him or herself.
Control of consequences (06) A person cannot be held responsible for consequences that they had no control over.
Alternatives (07) A person cannot be held responsible if they did not have a reasonable alternative to doing what they did.
Knowledge (08) A person cannot be held responsible for not choosing an alternative that they did not know existed.
Simulation on Excusing Conditions
1. Suppose that there are two mothers, two babies, and two jars-one of which is marked "arsenic" and the other of which is marked "baby food."
Unknown to the mothers the contents of the jars are switched so that the one marked "arsenic" contains baby food. One mother is tired of her baby crying and feeds her baby from the jar marked "arsenic." The other mother loves her baby and feeds her baby from the jar marked "baby food." Unknown to the mothers the contents of the jars have been switched.
Does the mother who poisoned her baby deserve blame? Why?
Does the mother whose baby is well deserve blame? Why?
2. Suppose a person is given a choice of handing over their wallet to a teenage drug addict or being killed. They hand over their wallet. A person sees this occur and says, "What are you doing giving money to a drug addict. Don't you know that he will use your money to buy drugs. You are contributing to the delinquency of a youth. Shame on you.?"
What might you say in your defense.
3. Suppose you are in a demonstration with thousands of people marching and you come to a police barricade. Suppose you don't want to break the law by going through the barricade but that people in back of you start pushing and you end up going through the barricade. Can you be blamed for going through the barricade?
4. Differentiate between being responsible for what you do when you are in a situation and being responsible for being in the situation. Might a person not be responsible once in a situation yet be responsible for being in the situation? Or might a person sometimes have no responsibility for what they do? Provide at least two examples in your response.
5. Do people make judgments of blame in everyday life. Do you suppose that the judgments we form have an effect on the way people relate to each other. Can this account for the feelings of hatred that people in one group may feel towards members of another group. Are such feelings ever justified? If you think they are justified, what do you think can remove these feelings? In your answer you might consider war, poverty, starvation, the racism. Should anyone be feeling guilty?
Simulation on Assigning Responsible to Particular Individuals
1. Imagine that we are placing individuals before a court of morality. In each case the individual is accused of doing something morally blameworthy, and in each case the individual tries to excuse his or her action, citing excusing conditions. Although moral responsibility is not the same as legal responsibility, for this exercise you might have individuals acting for the prosecution and the defense of the individuals. You decide whether they are guilty or blameless.
Simulation: Air Pollution
Individuals on Trial: factory workers, business managers, politicians
Condition: Inequality in the economic status of different ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Who is responsible for the continuing economic deprivation of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination in hiring?
Individuals on Trial: white student 16 years old, white individual 60 years old, African American student 16 years old, African American individual 60 years old, politician, business leader, factory worker, truck driver, individuals long since dead.
2. Consider a model with three people who are seated so that they cannot communicate. Each person has a button and there is a clock above them that they can all see. They are given instructions to either press or not press their buttons when the clock strikes the hour, and they are told the consequences are as follows:
Action Consequence
2 press and 1 does not good result
3 press room blows up
no one presses room blows up
Each person imagine that they are one of the individuals with the button. What would you do?
If the room blows up, whose fault is it? Can we attribute blame on any particular person. Can responsibility be assigned to anyone? Can people be responsible for events if no specific people are responsible? Are there any excusing conditions in this model? Can there be consequences for which no one is responsible?
3. Using the same model used in the last question, suppose that an "expert" comes along who knows the situation. Each person is given a headphone and the expert tells each to either push or not push their buttons. The expert tells them that they must follow orders or they will be blown up. Should the people in this situation follow the advice of an expert? Is the real world like this model. Should we follow experts?
4. Imagine a situation where two armies face each other across a field. There is a dog on the field and soldiers on both sides are under orders to advance when the dog barks. They will be shot if they do not advance. The dog barks. People are killed. Who is responsible. Each individual soldier? The dog? Can we blame anyone on the battlefield for killing?
Going backwards in time, month before the soldiers on both sides were in army camps following orders. A year before they were civilians who were drafted into their country's army.
Divide up parts and imagine that you have soldiers from each army, and officers who will shoot deserters. What response can soldiers give if you try to blame them for killing? Can you blame soldiers for killing on a battlefield? Can you blame them for anything? Can you blame anyone? C
5. Can you blame national leaders for war and preparing for war? Have two individuals imagine that they are the leaders of the two nations with armies on the battlefield. Suppose an angel comes down and makes the president of one country a good person who doesn't want to hurt anyone. Suppose that this country exists in a world of unscrupulous national leaders who would love to invade this president's nation. Now that our president is a benevolent fellow, how should he act?
Can a person be a national president, corporation chief, soldier, or hold any post and not do what that post requires. Can we hold a person responsible for doing their job? What, if anything, can we hold people responsible in the situation we have described?
1-800-231-1638
© Copyright 1998 by David W. Felder. All rights reserved.
