the view that there are no objective moral truths Objective moral truths
Lecture 11 – Feb. 13 Moral Skepticism Def.: the view that there are no objective moral truths Objective moral truths: moral claims that are true independently of what anyone thinks or feels •
According to the moral skeptic, “morality is the product of human invention.” (p. 8)
Problems with Moral Skepticism SL argues that without objectivism, we cannot make sense Moral Error or Moral Progress Moral Error Subjectivism: you cannot be mistaken in your moral views Relativism: your culture cannot be mistaken about its moral views More accurately: the only kind of error that is possible according to Subjectivism or Relativism is internal inconsistency Moral Error and Error Theory According to Error Theorists, the moral views of the racist or the misogynist are indeed mistaken But the opposite views are mistaken as well
•
All moral views (whether those of the racist or those of the humanitarian aid worker) are equally mistaken and mistaken in the same way
Moral Progress or Regress Apparent examples of Moral Progress: •
The US after the abolition of slavery
•
A former KKK member turned equality-advocate
The skeptical views cannot make sense of the idea that individuals, or societies, can improve morally •
Same goes for regress
Nihilism: •
There is no such thing as morality
•
So, there is no such thing as becoming morally better or morally worse
Moral Progress and Subjectivism Whatever you believe is right is right Example: •
When Bob used to be a Ku Klux Klan member, his behaviour as a KKK member was morally right
•
Now that Bob denounced the KKK, what is morally right for him has changed. But he has not become morally better
Moral Progress and Relativism Whatever your society says is right is right When a society says that slavery is right it is right, and when a society says slavery is wrong it is wrong So, a society that abolishes slavery does not count as having progressed morally Why be a Moral Skeptic? Argument 1: the Appeal to Dogmatism “If moral truths are not of our own making, then this gives objectivists license to criticize or belittle the moral views of everyone else. Those who are arrogant or overly selfassured about their moral views are almost always ethical objectivists. They believe in an objective morality, and believe, too, that they know exactly what it contains.” (p. 27) SL’s Response: Part 1
Objectivism says that there are objective moral truths It does not say that it is easy to come to know these truths So objectivism does not license being self-confident in our moral views It’s the opposite: “If we don’t make it all up, then there’s greater room for error.” (p. 29) SL’s Response: Part 2 Even if you are confident that you know something (whether about morality, science, or anything else), this doesn’t mean it is okay to be dogmatic about it If objectivism is true, a plausible candidate for an objective moral truth is: ‘one should refrain from being dogmatic.” SL’s Response: Part 3 Not only is Dogmatism not a problem for Objectivism; skeptical views have trouble with Dogmatism Nihilism •
Since there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic
Subjectivism and Relativism •
Each of us can be highly confident that our own views about morality are correct
•
Morever: we are morally right to be dogmatic as long as our personal outlook or culture approves of dogmatism
Argument 2: the Appeal to Tolerance “Suppose that ethical objectivism were true. Then some personal and social ethical codes would be morally inferior to others. And so it would be ok to treat them as such. But that is intolerant. So ethical objectivism leads to intolerance.” (p. 31) SL’s Response: Part 1 We must distinguish two questions 1. Are a person’s, or a society’s, moral views correct? 2. If a person’s, or a society’s, moral views are not correct, what is the morally right
thing to do about it? SL’s Response: Part 2 If Objectivism is true, then tolerance could be objectively valuable.
This would make sense of the idea that we ought to be tolerant and that people who behave intolerantly are acting wrongly. SL’s Response: Part 3 Moral Skepticism, on the other hand, cannot say that we out to be tolerant… Skeptical Views and Tolerance •
Nihilism: it cannot be true that we ought to be tolerant to those who are different from us, since there is no such thing as moral obligation
•
Subjectivism/Relativism: if you/your society endorse(s) intolerance to some group of people, then you are doing the morally right thing by acting intolerantly towards them
Argument 3: The Appeal to Freedom P1) We all possess equal rights to have and express our moral beliefs P2) If we all possess equal right to have and to express our moral beliefs, then all our moral beliefs, then all our moral beliefs are equally correct C) Therefore, all of our moral beliefs are equally correct •
(p. 20)
SL’s Response P2 is False: just b/c two people have an equal right to an opinion about something, this does not mean that their views are equally correct! P1 presupposes Objectivism: it attempts to express an objective moral truth (i.e. everyone has a right to their own opinion) Summary so Far •
Moral Error
•
Moral Progress and Regress
•
Dogmatism
•
Tolerance
•
Freedom of Belief and Expression o
All (according to SL) support being moral objectivists rather than moral skeptics
A Problem with Subjectivism and Relativism Either: subjectivism and relativism are internally contradictory
OR Subjectivism and relativism make moral disagreement is impossible •
Why?
Subjectivism Person A: ‘Abortion is morally permissible’ Person B: ‘Abortion is morally impermissible’ •
It seems that according to Subjectivism, abortion is both permissible and impermissible
•
So subjectivism is internally contradictory, and thus cannot be true
Relativism Culture A: ‘Abortion is morally permissible’ Culture B: ‘Abortion is morally impermissible’ •
It seems abortion is both morally permissible and impermissible, according to Relativism
•
So relativism is internally contradictory and thus cannot be true
A Way Out of the Problem “Instead of the categorical, flat-out moral claims that we are all used to, all moral judgments have attached to them a special (if implicit) qualification. When I say that something is immoral, I don’t mean that it is immoral, period. What I mean is that it is wrong for me, or according to me. Or, if we focus on relativism, […], I mean that something is wrong in my society, or according to my society.” (p. 40) For this example: Subjectivism: ‘abortion is permissible’ just means ‘according to me, abortion is permissible’ or ‘for me, abortion is permissible’. Relativism: ‘abortion is permissible’ just means ‘according to my culture, abortion is permissible’, or ‘for my culture, abortion is permissible’. •
This way, neither theory is contradictory
But this yields a new problem The Pro-Choicer’s ‘abortion is permissible’ just means ‘according to me/for me, abortion is permissible’ The Pro-Lifer’s ‘abortion is impermissible’ just means ‘according to me/for me, abortion is impermissible’
•
So, they cannot actually be disagreeing with one another
A Problem with Subjectivism and Relativism Either Subjectivism and Relativism are internally contradictory OR Subjectivism and Relativism make moral disagreement impossible
According to the moral skeptic, “morality is the product of human invention.” (p. 8)
Problems with Moral Skepticism SL argues that without objectivism, we cannot make sense Moral Error or Moral Progress Moral Error Subjectivism: you cannot be mistaken in your moral views Relativism: your culture cannot be mistaken about its moral views More accurately: the only kind of error that is possible according to Subjectivism or Relativism is internal inconsistency Moral Error and Error Theory According to Error Theorists, the moral views of the racist or the misogynist are indeed mistaken But the opposite views are mistaken as well
•
All moral views (whether those of the racist or those of the humanitarian aid worker) are equally mistaken and mistaken in the same way
Moral Progress or Regress Apparent examples of Moral Progress: •
The US after the abolition of slavery
•
A former KKK member turned equality-advocate
The skeptical views cannot make sense of the idea that individuals, or societies, can improve morally •
Same goes for regress
Nihilism: •
There is no such thing as morality
•
So, there is no such thing as becoming morally better or morally worse
Moral Progress and Subjectivism Whatever you believe is right is right Example: •
When Bob used to be a Ku Klux Klan member, his behaviour as a KKK member was morally right
•
Now that Bob denounced the KKK, what is morally right for him has changed. But he has not become morally better
Moral Progress and Relativism Whatever your society says is right is right When a society says that slavery is right it is right, and when a society says slavery is wrong it is wrong So, a society that abolishes slavery does not count as having progressed morally Why be a Moral Skeptic? Argument 1: the Appeal to Dogmatism “If moral truths are not of our own making, then this gives objectivists license to criticize or belittle the moral views of everyone else. Those who are arrogant or overly selfassured about their moral views are almost always ethical objectivists. They believe in an objective morality, and believe, too, that they know exactly what it contains.” (p. 27) SL’s Response: Part 1
Objectivism says that there are objective moral truths It does not say that it is easy to come to know these truths So objectivism does not license being self-confident in our moral views It’s the opposite: “If we don’t make it all up, then there’s greater room for error.” (p. 29) SL’s Response: Part 2 Even if you are confident that you know something (whether about morality, science, or anything else), this doesn’t mean it is okay to be dogmatic about it If objectivism is true, a plausible candidate for an objective moral truth is: ‘one should refrain from being dogmatic.” SL’s Response: Part 3 Not only is Dogmatism not a problem for Objectivism; skeptical views have trouble with Dogmatism Nihilism •
Since there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic
Subjectivism and Relativism •
Each of us can be highly confident that our own views about morality are correct
•
Morever: we are morally right to be dogmatic as long as our personal outlook or culture approves of dogmatism
Argument 2: the Appeal to Tolerance “Suppose that ethical objectivism were true. Then some personal and social ethical codes would be morally inferior to others. And so it would be ok to treat them as such. But that is intolerant. So ethical objectivism leads to intolerance.” (p. 31) SL’s Response: Part 1 We must distinguish two questions 1. Are a person’s, or a society’s, moral views correct? 2. If a person’s, or a society’s, moral views are not correct, what is the morally right
thing to do about it? SL’s Response: Part 2 If Objectivism is true, then tolerance could be objectively valuable.
This would make sense of the idea that we ought to be tolerant and that people who behave intolerantly are acting wrongly. SL’s Response: Part 3 Moral Skepticism, on the other hand, cannot say that we out to be tolerant… Skeptical Views and Tolerance •
Nihilism: it cannot be true that we ought to be tolerant to those who are different from us, since there is no such thing as moral obligation
•
Subjectivism/Relativism: if you/your society endorse(s) intolerance to some group of people, then you are doing the morally right thing by acting intolerantly towards them
Argument 3: The Appeal to Freedom P1) We all possess equal rights to have and express our moral beliefs P2) If we all possess equal right to have and to express our moral beliefs, then all our moral beliefs, then all our moral beliefs are equally correct C) Therefore, all of our moral beliefs are equally correct •
(p. 20)
SL’s Response P2 is False: just b/c two people have an equal right to an opinion about something, this does not mean that their views are equally correct! P1 presupposes Objectivism: it attempts to express an objective moral truth (i.e. everyone has a right to their own opinion) Summary so Far •
Moral Error
•
Moral Progress and Regress
•
Dogmatism
•
Tolerance
•
Freedom of Belief and Expression o
All (according to SL) support being moral objectivists rather than moral skeptics
A Problem with Subjectivism and Relativism Either: subjectivism and relativism are internally contradictory
OR Subjectivism and relativism make moral disagreement is impossible •
Why?
Subjectivism Person A: ‘Abortion is morally permissible’ Person B: ‘Abortion is morally impermissible’ •
It seems that according to Subjectivism, abortion is both permissible and impermissible
•
So subjectivism is internally contradictory, and thus cannot be true
Relativism Culture A: ‘Abortion is morally permissible’ Culture B: ‘Abortion is morally impermissible’ •
It seems abortion is both morally permissible and impermissible, according to Relativism
•
So relativism is internally contradictory and thus cannot be true
A Way Out of the Problem “Instead of the categorical, flat-out moral claims that we are all used to, all moral judgments have attached to them a special (if implicit) qualification. When I say that something is immoral, I don’t mean that it is immoral, period. What I mean is that it is wrong for me, or according to me. Or, if we focus on relativism, […], I mean that something is wrong in my society, or according to my society.” (p. 40) For this example: Subjectivism: ‘abortion is permissible’ just means ‘according to me, abortion is permissible’ or ‘for me, abortion is permissible’. Relativism: ‘abortion is permissible’ just means ‘according to my culture, abortion is permissible’, or ‘for my culture, abortion is permissible’. •
This way, neither theory is contradictory
But this yields a new problem The Pro-Choicer’s ‘abortion is permissible’ just means ‘according to me/for me, abortion is permissible’ The Pro-Lifer’s ‘abortion is impermissible’ just means ‘according to me/for me, abortion is impermissible’
•
So, they cannot actually be disagreeing with one another
A Problem with Subjectivism and Relativism Either Subjectivism and Relativism are internally contradictory OR Subjectivism and Relativism make moral disagreement impossible
