Transcript Document

Why Be Moral?
Introduction
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Basics
• Suppose that there are
some obviously moral and
immoral actions
– I.e. believe in cultural
relativism or moral
absolutism
• Also suppose that there is
no heaven and hell and no
intervening God
More Basics
• Basically, assume that there
is a morally right thing to do.
• In this section we are
interested in the question:
• ‘Why should we do the morally
right thing?
– Against the background
assumption that ‘we could
benefit ourselves by not doing
the morally right thing’
Bank Error in Your
Favour
• $30,000 from an ATM with a
receipt for $30
• You leave the money in a
safe place for 2 months
• Neither the bank nor Target
have contacted you
• Do you keep the money?
– Why? Why not?
Some Excuses
• The bank won’t notice
– Neither would a supermarket
• ANZ has bad customer service
and is not NZ-owned
• You will donate half of the $$
to charity
• You deserve it due to past
hardships/wrongs
– Bank error not in your favour
Next Time
• Read:
– Plato: ‘The Ring of Gyges’
– Rachels: ‘Ethical Egoism’
• Get ready to discuss:
– How power corrupts
– If anyone every really does
anything for moral reasons
Why Be Moral?
The Ring of Gygees
&
Rachels on Ethical
Egoism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Today
• Follows the Plato reading:
– ‘The Ring of Gyges’
• Then follows the 1st half
of the Rachels reading:
– Ethical Egoism
• He discusses and refutes 3
arguments in support of
Ethical Egoism
Recap of the Basics
• Basically, assume that there
is a morally right thing to do.
• In this section we are
interested in the question:
• ‘Why should we do the morally
right thing?
– Against the background
assumption that ‘we could
benefit ourselves by not doing
the morally right thing’
The Ring of Gygees
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
The Ring of Gyges
• Like “The One Ring” in LOTR
– Makes you invisible etc.
• A shepherd finds it inside a
big horse with windows
• He uses it to commit
adultery with the kings wife,
kill the king and takes over
as the new king
Glaucon on Giving Power
to the Just
1) The only reason we don’t act
unjustly is because we fear
retribution
2) Therefore, a just (moral) and an
unjust (immoral) person would
both act unjustly if they had
the Ring of Gyges
c) Therefore we should be immoral
if we can get away with it
Glaucon’s Defense of P1
1) The only reason we don’t act
unjustly is because we fear
retribution
• The nature of every organism
is to desire “undue gain”
–
–
–
•
Similar to Psychological Egoism
E.g. dolphins & sparrows ‘pack
rape’
E.g. many birds ‘commit adultery’
The law and our peers force us
to repress this desire
Psychological Egoism
• We have evolved so that
everything we do (whether
we realise it or not) is in
the pursuit of self-interest
- E.g. We saved the
drowning child (or
dog) because we want
the benefits (power,
sex, cooperation) of
being a hero
How Would Socrates
Reply?
1) The only reason we
don’t act unjustly is
because we fear
retribution
•
S: Truly just people
would act morally
because they love
justice
Glaucon on the Path to
Happiness
1) We have created ‘justice’
(conventional morality) only
because we are afraid of
suffering
2) The extremely unjust (immoral)
person will be happier than the
extremely just (moral) person
c) Therefore, we should
(prudentially) be immoral if we
can get away with it
How Might Socrates
Reply?
• S: Unjust people find it hard
to live with themselves
because they have to live
with a bad person, which
makes them unhappy
Important for the Exam
• What is Glaucon arguing for?
• How good are his arguments?
• Are there any nonprudential reasons to act
morally?
Rachels on Ethical
Egoism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Is there a Duty to Help
the Starving?
• 10m die from starvation and
preventable diseases per year
• Each of us could save one for
$10/w
• Do we have a duty to help the
starving? … Perhaps…
• We have a duty to help others
because “they are people who
could be helped or harmed by us”
Rachels: Egoism
• Psychological Egoism:
– We do always act to pursue
only our own interests
– Descriptive claim
• Ethical Egoism:
– We should always act to pursue
only our own interests
– “Our only duty is to do what is
best for ourselves”
– Normative claim
Rachels: Ethical Egoism
• “Our only duty is to do what is
best for ourselves… over the
long run”
• Ethical egoists don’t need to
avoid doing things for others
• Ethical egoists shouldn’t ‘just
do whatever they want (man)’
– E.g. drug overdoses, smoke cigies
– Because those things are not in
their long-term interests
3 Arguments for Ethical
Egoism
1) The argument that altruism
is self-defeating
2) Ayn Rand’s argument
3) Ethical egoism as
compatible with
commonsense morality
Altruism is
Self-Defeating
1) When we try to help others, we
end up hurting them. E.g.
–
–
–
We know our own interests well,
but not others’ interests. So when
we help, we often hinder
Looking out for others robs them
of their privacy
Giving “charity” demeans the
recipient’s self-worth
c) Therefore, we should all attend
to only our own interests
The
‘Altruism is
Argument is
Self-Defeating!
Self-Defeating’
1) We ought to do whatever
will best promote
everyone’s interests
2) The best way to do that is
for each of us to pursue
only our own interests
c) Therefore, each of us
should pursue only our own
interests
Ayn Rand’s Argument
1) Our life should be the
most important thing to
us…
2) The ethics of altruism
does not value human life
as it should
3) Ethical Egoism does value
human life as it should
c) Thus, EE is the best
theory
Ethical Egoism:
Some Strategies
• First two strategies were
revisionist
– Conventional morality (what we
generally believe) is wrong
• Next one is reductionist
– The principles of conventional
morality can be reduced to
(explained by) one underlying
principle
– Namely ‘self-interest’
Ethical Egoism is
Compatible with
Commonsense Morality
• Self-interest underpins all other
principles in commonsense
morality – e.g.
• The duty not to harm others
– Avoid retribution or jail
• The duty not to lie
– Reputation / need true information
from others
• The duty to keep our promises
– Ensure access to mutually beneficial
relationships
Problems for ‘EE is
Compatible with
Commonsense Morality’
• It doesn’t prove enough
– We can still imagine times when
harming others will benefit us
– Thus, the duty ‘not to harm’ cannot
be reduced to self-interest
• It ignores the possibility of
other reasons
– Giving $ to the poor could at least
partially be to prevent them from
starving
Next Time
• Read:
– Singer: ‘Why Act Morally?’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Rachels’ 3 reasons why EE
might be a bad moral theory
– Why acting immorally is
usually a stupid (antiprudential) thing to do
– Summary of ‘Why Be Moral?’
Why Be Moral?
Rachels
&
Singer
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Why Even Discuss Those
Egoisms?
• Psychological Egoism:
– We do always act to pursue only our
own interests
– Would mean that we can’t be ‘moral’
• Ethical Egoism:
– We should always act to pursue only
our own interests
– Would mean that we shouldn’t be
‘moral’
• ‘Moral’ means being altruistic
– Acting to further the interests of
others
3 Arguments for Ethical
Egoism
1) The argument that altruism is
self-defeating
- Self-defeating
- Had counter-examples
2) Ayn Rand’s argument
- False dichotomy
- Had counter-examples
3) Ethical egoism as compatible
with commonsense morality
- OK, but had counter examples
Today
• Follows the 2nd half of the
Rachels reading:
– Ethical Egoism
• He discusses 3 arguments in
support of Ethical Egoism
• Follows the Singer reading:
– Why Be Moral?
• A summary
Why Might Ethical
Egoism be Wrong?
• It endorses wickedness e.g.
– Pharmacist waters down cancer drugs
to increase profit margin
– Nurse rapes unconscious patients
– Paramedic gives water instead of
morphine, then sells it
– Parents feed their baby acid for fake
lawsuit
– Neighbour kidnaps and abuses girl in
a bomb-shelter
• This approach begs the question
3 Arguments against
Ethical Egoism
1) The argument that ethical
egoism cannot handle
conflicts of interest
2) The argument that ethical
egoism is logically
inconsistent
3) The argument that ethical
egoism is unacceptably
arbitrary
EE Cannot Handle
Conflicts of Interest
1) Moral theories should solve
problems of conflict of
interests
2) EE cannot solve these
problems, it only exacerbates
them
E.g. Obama & the Crips vs. McCain and
the Bloods
c) Therefore, EE is a bad moral
theory
EE is Logically
Inconsistent
1) Apply EE to Obama/McCain e.g.
2) The result is that they both
have a duty to prevent the other
from doing their duty
3) But, it’s morally wrong to
prevent someone form doing
their duty
4) Thus, EE leads to their actions
being both morally wrong and
right
c) Thus, EE leads to contradictions
EE is Unacceptably
Arbitrary 1
• Arbitrary moral views make
distinctions between
groups without having a
good reason to do so. E.g.
– Racism
• The difference in
treatment is not based on a
relevant actual difference
between the groups
• Therefore, arbitrary moral
views are inconsistent
EE is Unacceptably
Arbitrary 2
EE says to
treat the
interests of
others with
no respect
whatsoever
and our own
with utmost
respect
1) EE divides the world into ‘I’
and ‘everyone else’
2) EE prescribes that we treat
‘everyone else’ differently to
how we treat ourselves
3) There is no relevant
difference between ‘I’ and
‘everyone else’ that warrants
the difference in treatment
c) Thus, EE is arbitrary
Rachels’ Conclusion
• “We should care about the
interests of other people for the
same reason we care about our
own interests; for their needs
and desires are comparable to
our own”
• If starving, would we need aid?
• If our need for food should be
met, then so should theirs.
• Some can help and some can’t –
which group are you in?
Singer on ‘Why Act
Moral?’
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Why Act Morally?
• Singer: What prudential
reasons are there to act
morally?
• Can it be shown that
living ethically will
lead to happiness?
– That ethics and selfinterest coincide?
Moral Emotions 1
• Most people have
benevolent feelings
towards others
– Like sympathy for the
starving
• Most people feel guilty
when they do ‘immoral’
acts
– Like feeling bad for reading
your sister’s diary
– Or flirting with old ladies
Moral Emotions 2
• These emotions mean:
– Doing good makes us feel good
– Doing bad makes us feel bad
• Given the extent of
suffering, why not suppress
these sympathetic
inclinations?
• It’s hard to do – repeated
exposure might work but
would be very unpleasant
The Problem of Psychopaths
• Psychopaths are often
happy, but are indifferent
to the welfare of others
– No empathy, guilt, shame
• If there was a fix, it’s not
clear that the smart ones
(who are unlikely to be
caught) would or should
want it
• Smart psychopaths might
show that morality is not
required for happiness
But are Psychopaths
Happy?
• They are persuasive liars
• Even if they are honest about
being happy, their
interpretation of happiness
might be different to ours
• Cleckley: A psycho’s life is like
a kid at a philosophy lecture
– They can’t appreciate it, they get
bored, and they misbehave
– Psychos don’t appreciate the most
important things in life
Does Life Have Meaning?
• We can’t criticise the
psycho’s meaningless
life if our lives are also
meaningless
• Religious purpose for
life
• Atheistic meaningful
lives
Singer Evaluates the
Meaningfulness
• A psychopath’s only hope for
a meaningful life is to
pursue happiness
• The paradox of happiness
• Ethical Egoists pursue their
own interests
• Normal lives get happiness
in the pursuit of something
bigger – an ethical life
Singer’s Conclusion
• It’s not irrational to want to be
a smart psychopath
• Immoral acts are not necessarily
irrational
• We’ll always need laws and
police to decrease incentives to
be immoral
• But, smart people should see
that our best shot at a
meaningful life is by pursuing an
ethical life
Summary of ‘Why Be
Moral (Altruistic)?’
• Can we actually be altruistic?
– Psychological egoism says ‘no’
• Are there good philosophical
reasons for being altruistic?
– Ethical egoism says ‘no’
– Rachels: ‘Yes’, because ethical
egoism (being immoral) is arbitrary
• Are there good prudential
reasons for being altruistic?
– Ethical egoism says ‘sometimes’
– Singer: ‘Yes’, the most meaningful
life we can get is the ethical one