The Euthyphro
Are moral acts willed by God because they are good, or are they good because they are willed by God? If the former, then moral law is something apart from God. If the latter, then moral law is arbitrary.
Is this a serious difficulty? If not, then where does it go wrong?
We'll take up this question again later.
Metaethics
Objectivism vs. Subjectivism
Moral law is objective (something real), or
moral law is subjective (just a matter of opinion).
It's either the one or the other.
The differences argument...
- People and cultures differ in opinion about moral law.
- There is no way to know who is right and who is wrong about it.
- Therefore, no one is right and no one is wrong about moral law.
Universalism vs. Relativism
Moral law is universal (applies to everyone always), or
Moral law is relative to individuals/cultures (decided by circumstances).
If moral law is real, then it is either the one or the other.
Implications of relativism
- Moral judgement is impossible. (We cannot say...)
- Moral improvement is impossible. (We cannto say...)
Again, the cultural differences argument (see above).
How might one answer this argument?
Relativism vs. Subjectivism
Relativism asserts that moral law is real, but relative to people or cultures.
Subjectivism asserts that morality is not real at all.
Why do what's right at all?
Supposing that we know what is right. Why do it?
The ring of Gyges (or Smeagol)
Reward and punishment?
Love and respect? Obedience?
Two questions
I mean to draw attention to two very important questions...
- How can we know what is right and wrong?
- Why should we do what is right?
Most theories of "normative ethics" address only the first of these.
Normative ethics
Consequentialist theories
Utilitarianism
Consequentialism
An act is right just in case its good consequences outweigh its bad ones.
+ Hedonism
The only good that matters for morality is pleasure.
+ Impartiality
Only the agregate good is to be considered.
Applications...
Why do so many accept utilitarianism?
Each of the three parts of utilitarianism seems right.
Arguments against utilitarianism
Against consequentialism…
Do ends justify means? This permits too much.
What about inalienable rights? Transplant case.
Against impartiality
Do we have duties to ourselves and those close to us?
Against hedonism
What about evil pleasure? Happy torturer case
The experience machine
Would you get in?
Other goods to consider
Actual achievement
Actual mutual love
Contact with deeper reality
Duty theories
We have duties to ourselves and to others that we must meet regardless of the consequences.
Immanuel Kant
Hypothetical imperative
If you want that girl to like you, you must brush your teeth and comb your hair.
Categorical imperative
You must always treat people as ends, never as means to ends.
Persons have inherent value and should never be treated as objects or used as tools to get the things that we want.
The intention of the action is also important.
This meets many of our intuitions.
Suicide
Drug abuse
Sex and marriage
Lying
Trolley and transplant cases
But, again, why do what is right? Because it would be right to do so?
Virtue theories
What makes something right? and why do what is right?
On one view, these have the same answer.
What is right for a thing is what is good for it.
If what is good for a thing depends on what it is,
then what is right for that thing depends on what it is.
We have an objective measure and also a reason.
Aristotle on the good life
Everything in nature has a natural end.
What a thing aims at by nature is the good of that thing.
We can discover the good of a thing by what its activity aims at.
All human activity aims at one thing.
Some of our ends are instrumental. One of them is final.
This end is the good of human persons.
What is our natural end?
Happiness is the natural or final end of all human activity.
Can one live a life full of pleasure and not be happy?
get everything one wants?
achieve all of one’s goals?
Happiness is true human fulfilment or flourishing.
‘Happiness’ (for human persons) is another word for ‘good.’
Everything in nature has a special function.
What makes a good carpenter a good carpenter?
What is the special function of a carpenter?
A good carpenter is one who performs this function well.
What makes a good carpenter a good person?
What is the special function of a human person?
A good person is one who performs this function well.
What is our special function?
What makes us different from other living things?
It’s not mere vegetative life. This is shared even with plants.
Nor is it merely appetitive. This is shared with irrational animals.
Our soul has two parts: The rational and the irrational.
Achieving our good has something do with the rational part.
Again, a good person is one who performs this function well.
What does our special function have to do with our natural end?
By right reason we can know what is good for us and what is right.
Right actions are those that promote human flourishing.
By right reasoning we can also be good and, so, to do what is right.
We do not automatically do what is right.
For us, right action involves choice.
We aim at happiness but can miss the mark.
This is sometimes due to faulty reasoning or ignorance.
Most often, it is because our passions have not been properly formed.
The rational part must control the irrational part.
Happiness comes from developing the right habits
The good man feels the right things at the right times, to the right degree, and toward the right objects and/or persons.
Virtue is the habit of choosing in accordance with a mean.
The mean between the extremes of deficiency and excess.
The virtue of courage is between cowardice and foolhardiness.
What is right? Actions that tend toward human fulfilment?
Why do what is right? It is what is good for us. It is what we want to do.
Revisiting the Euthyphro dilemma
Are moral acts willed by God because they are good, or are they good because they are willed by God? If the former, then moral law is something apart from God. If the latter, then moral law is arbitrary.
End
