Philosophy 1100 – Introduction to Ethics

Lecture 1 – Introduction – Part 1

I. Introductory Material: Critical Thinking, Meta-Ethics, Philosophy,
and Religion
An Overview of the Introductory Material: The Main Topics

1. The Origin of Philosophy

2. Ethics as a Branch of Philosophy
3. The Nature of Philosophy
4. The Nature of Ethics
5. Meta-Ethics and Normative Ethics
6. The Focus in this Course
7. How Can this Approach Possibly Work?

An Overview of the Introductory Material: The Main Topics

8. The Socratic Challenge and the Unexamined Life
9. Some Important Beliefs about the Nature of the World
10. Could Some of Your Most Important Beliefs Be False?
11. The Relation between God and Objective Moral Values
12. Are There Revealed Truths?

Question 1
How much exposure to philosophy have you had?
A. I haven’t really been exposed to philosophy to any extent.
B. I’ve heard a little about philosophy, or I’ve read a few things written by philosophers.
C. I’ve had one philosophy course, either in high school or college.
D. I’ve had a few philosophy courses.
E. I could teach this class.
The Origin of Philosophy
Philosophy originated in Greek society, during a period when science
began, when there were very great discoveries and advances indeed in
mathematics, achieved by people such as Pythagoras (569?-500? B.C.), Zeno (495-
435 B.C.), Eudoxus (408-355 B.C.), Euclid (330?-275? B.C.), and Archimedes (287-
212 B.C.), and when democracy also originated.

The Three Greatest Greek Philosophers

Socrates (469-399 B.C.)
Socrates did not himself write anything. He questioned people, raising
philosophical issues, especially about the nature of the good life. He was
charged with not respecting the gods, and with corrupting the young, and he
was sentenced to death. He died by drinking hemlock. He was Plato's teacher,
and our knowledge of Socrates is based mainly upon Plato's dialogues, especially
the early, 'Socratic' ones.
Plato (426-347 B.C.)
Plato wrote many dialogues. In all of them his teacher, Socrates, was the
central figure. The early dialogues focus upon ethics, and are generally thought
to provide an accurate account of Socrates' own views. In later dialogues,
however, the figure of Socrates becomes a spokesman for Plato, and the range of
philosophical discussion is greatly expanded: rather than focusing almost
entirely on ethical questions, later dialogues address topics in metaphysics, in
theory of knowledge, in philosophy of mind, in logic and philosophy of
language, and in social and political theory.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle was a student of Plato, and like Plato, he had a very strong interest
in ethics, and in social and political philosophy. (Politics and the Nichomachean
Ethics.) Like Plato, however, Aristotle was interested in all of philosophy. Thus
he wrote about the nature of the mind (or soul); he wrote about knowledge and
sense perception; he addressed questions in metaphysics about the ultimate
nature of the world, and the existence of a prime mover.
Aristotle also investigated logic in a very systematic way, and he
developed a theory of what are called syllogistic arguments that distinguished
between those arguments that are logically correct (or valid) and those that are
not. This theory endured for over 2100 years, with very few significant advances
being made until well into the 19th century.
The Future Development of Logic
Significant contributions to the development in logic were made in the 19th
century by George Boole (1815-1864), and by Augustus De Morgan. The great
transformation in logic was made, however, by Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), who,
with the publication of his Begriffschrift in produced "the first really
comprehensive system of formal logic," and a system that went far beyond
Aristotle's syllogistic logic.)
William Kneale and Martha Kneale, The Development of Logic (Oxford:
Clarrendon Press, 1962), p. 510.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) - Continued
Aristotle's interests were, however, even broader than Plato's, since
Aristotle was also very interested in science - specifically, both physics and
biology. In the case of biology, it may well be that Aristotle examined more
species of living things than anyone until the time of Charles Darwin.
(Aristotle's most famous student was not a philosopher, but a general and ruler -
Alexander the Great - who traveled a great deal, and who either brought back
specimens of animals from other lands - including many marine animals - or else
provided Aristotle with detailed reports of observations of animals made by
others.)
Finally, in the case of physics, Aristotle's views completely dominated the
intellectual landscape for over 1800 years, until the time of Galileo (1564-1642).
2. Ethics as a Branch of Philosophy
As one can see from the above, ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is not a
new discipline: it began with Socrates, over 2400 years ago, and it was one of the
central interests of the two other Greek philosophers who are generally
considered two of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived - Plato and
Aristotle.
This development, moreover, represented an enormous break with what
had existed previously. For, before Socrates, ethics was almost invariably
associated with religion, with moral rules being regarded as laws handed down
by a deity, with right and wrong being a matter of divine injunctions and
prohibitions - such as in the case of the Ten Commandments, which were held by
the Jews to have been handed down to Moses on tablets of stone given to him by
Yahweh.
The idea that moral truths are to be arrived at by some process of thought
and rational reflection challenges this view that moral truths must come from a
deity, and in doing so it raises an issue that is very important indeed:
Should one look to religion for answers to moral questions, or should one turn
instead to philosophy?
This issue is, moreover, one that is very much alive today, as many people
continue to maintain that we should turn to religion - or, rather, to some
particular religion - rather than to philosophy, if we want to know what moral
principles to accept.
3. The Nature of Philosophy
What is philosophy?
Philosophy, both as it has been practiced since the time of Socrates, and as
it is practiced today, involves at least the following four activities.
(1) The Justification of Basic Beliefs
Philosophers are concerned with whether various basic human beliefs are
justified, and, if so, precisely how.
Some examples:
1. Are we really aware of an external world? (Compare the movie, The Matrix.)
2. Can we know that other humans also have minds? (Compare also René
Descartes' (1596-1650) view that non-human animals were mere automata.)
3. Are we justified in believing that we are really free?
4. Are there objective standards of right and wrong?
5. Is it true - as most people seem to believe - that we survive bodily death?
6. Was there a creator of the physical universe?

(2) The Analysis of Fundamental Concepts

Philosophers are also concerned with the clarification and the analysis of
the fundamental concepts that enter into basic human beliefs - such as the
concept of a physical object, of space and time, of the mind, of consciousness, of
freedom, of right and wrong, etc.

(3) The Discovery of Necessary Truths

A related activity concerns the relation between fundamental concepts:
philosophers attempt to establish truths involving those concepts that could not
be otherwise, truths that are necessary.
Some examples:
1. In science fiction stories - such as The Terminator - people sometimes travel
backwards into the past.
2. Is it logically possible - as many philosophers and scientists today claim - that
the mind is just the brain, and that consciousness is just a neural process?
3. The Nature of Philosophy
(4) The Development of a Systematic Overview - a Synoptic View - of Reality
as a Whole
The basic goal here is to arrive at a picture of reality as a whole that is both
comprehensive and plausible.
One Illustration: The Nature of the Mind, and its Place in Reality
Another Illustration: Human Freedom and Moral Responsibility, and the
Determinism of Newtonian Physics
4. The Nature of Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, and the four activities just mentioned are
central to ethics as well.
(1) Justification Questions
1. Are there objective moral values?
2. If there are, how can we acquire knowledge of such values?
3. If we can acquire such knowledge, what basic moral principles are in fact the
correct ones?

(2) Questions of Analysis

1. What does it mean to say that an action is morally wrong? Or that it is
morally permissible?
2. What does it mean to say that some state of affairs is good or desirable, or that
it is bad or undesirable?

(3) Questions Concerning Necessary Truths

1. Is it a necessary truth that the morally right action is the one that leads to the
best balance of good states of affairs over bad states of affairs?
2. Is it a necessary truth that only pleasure is intrinsically good - good in itself -
and that only pain is intrinsically bad?
3. Is it a necessary truth that an action that is forbidden by an omnipotent and
omniscient creator of the universe is morally wrong, and ought not to be done?

(4) Questions Concerning the Metaphysics of Value, the Place of Values in

Reality
We inhabit a physical world in space and time. If there are objective values,
how do they fit into things?
1. Do objective values exist somewhere in space and time? Are they, perhaps,
non-natural properties of actions and states of affairs, as the English philosopher
G. E. Moore believed? Or do they instead exist in some non-spatial, non-
temporal realm - as Plato believed? Or do they exist in the mind of God, as some
religious thinkers have claimed?
2. How do we acquire knowledge of objective values? Do they causally act upon
our minds? If so, then things in the physical world are affected not just by
physical forces - as most physicists appear to believe, nor even just by physical
forces plus minds: objective values also exert at least an indirect influence, via
their influence upon minds, and upon our beliefs about right and wrong.
5. Meta-Ethics and Normative Ethics
In some readings, you may encounter the terms "meta-ethics" and
"normative ethics". Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned
with (1) the analysis of ethical concepts, (2) necessary truths involving such
concepts, (3) the metaphysics of value, and (4) the most general questions about
the justification of ethical beliefs. Normative ethics, on the other hand, is
concerned with setting out correct principles concerning the rightness and
wrongness of actions, and the goodness and badness of states of affairs.
Sometimes the goal is the highly theoretical one of constructing a general ethical
theory that contains all of the basic moral principles. Sometimes, however, the
focus is upon much more specific questions - such as whether premarital sex, or
physician-assisted suicide, or late-term abortion, is morally permissible?
6. The Focus in this Course
In this course we shall not be tackling issues in meta-ethics. We shall not
be concerned with the analysis of ethical statements. We shall not attempt to
arrive at necessary truths involving ethical concepts. We shall not consider
whether there really are objective values. We shall not reflect upon the
metaphysics of value.
Nor shall we attempt to construct a sound, general moral theory that
would, in principle, supply answers to all of one's ethical questions.
Our focus will instead be upon a number of detailed moral issues. We
shall, then, be doing what might be called 'low-level normative ethics', rather
than either meta-ethics or high-level normative ethics.
7. How Can Such an Approach Possibly Be Sound?
But can such an approach really be sound? For, in the first place, unless
one has addressed the meta-ethical questions of whether there really are
objective moral values, and of whether one can have knowledge of such values,
isn't normative ethics a sham and a fraud? In the second place, how can one
usefully tackle lower-level normative questions until one has established which
general principles are correct? How can one tackle detailed ethical questions
except by applying correct basic moral principles to those detailed issues?
It is certainly true that the ideal approach would involve, first, tackling the
meta-ethical issues, establishing that there are objective moral values, and
showing that it is possible to have knowledge of such values; secondly, using the
method that one has just shown to be correct to arrive at a general theory that
contains all correct basic moral principles; and, thirdly, then applying that
general theory to arrive at the correct answers to specific, lower-level questions.
But the problems are, first, that no philosopher has yet advanced an
argument for the conclusion that there are objective values that has gained
anything like general acceptance, and, secondly, that even among philosophers
who believe that there are objective values, there is great disagreement about
how one can establish what the correct moral principles are?
Not a happy state of affairs. But if that's the way things are, then isn't one
forced to conclude that, at present, it is a waste of time doing low-level
normative ethics?
The answer is ‘No’, and the reason is this. Low-level normative ethics
does not depend upon a solution to these high-level ethical issues is this: the
application of techniques of critical thinking can often provide a person with
good reasons for changing his or her moral beliefs.
 How can techniques of critical thinking do this?
One Possibility: A Person Has Potentially Inconsistent Moral Beliefs
This possibly arises because people often have potential moral beliefs that
conflict with their actual moral beliefs. What I have in mind here is that people
may, on the one hand, believe that all actions of a certain type are wrong, but
there may be cases of such an action that, if they were to consider the case, they
would not think that the action was wrong.
Here's an illustration of how that can work:
Question 2
What do you think about the following claim?
"Pleasurable activities may have bad consequences, but pleasure in itself is
always good."
A. Strongly agree.
B. I’m inclined to agree.
C. I’m uncertain, or I want to pass on this question.
D. I’m inclined to disagree.
E. Strongly disagree.

Next, consider the following question:

"Are there any crucial, potential counterexamples to the claim that pleasure in
itself is always good?"
One type of plausible counterexample involves the case of sadistic
pleasure. Compare, for example, a serial killer who gets great pleasure form
killing people with a serial killed who gets only mild enjoyment. Is the world a
better place if it has the former sort of serial killer than if it has the latter sort –
assuming that each will kill the same number of people? Most people, I suggest,
will think that the first of these alternatives does not make the world a better
place, even though it means that the world contains more pleasure.
If one shares that view, and if one initially thought that pleasure in itself is
always good, one now has a reason to abandon that view. What has happened is
that a type of case that one did not consider when one initially formed the
judgment that pleasure in itself is always good is such that when one does
consider the case, one judges that pleasure of that sort does not make the world a
better place.
A Second Possibility: Moral Beliefs that Are Based Upon Non-Moral Beliefs
that Turn out to be False
This second possibility is connected with the fact that not all moral beliefs
are basic. Some rest upon beliefs concerning non-moral facts, and if those non-
moral beliefs turn out to be false, that will destroy the basis of the moral belief
that rests upon those non-moral beliefs.
 Here's a simple example. Consider the case of someone who thinks that
abortion is always wrong because, and only because, there is an immaterial soul
present in human beings from conception. If it turns out that there is good
reason to reject the belief that there is an immaterial soul present in human
beings from conception, exposure to that will give the person in question a good
reason to abandon the belief hat abortion is always wrong because the person we
are considering accepts that belief only because he or she believes that there is an
immaterial soul present in human beings from conception.