Recent Ethical Theories
Many of the ethical theories we've addressed so far in this class have deep historical roots, some going back to classical Greek philosophy such as virtue theory. Others have a shorter history and really began in earnest in the 18th-century enlightenment. These would include deontology and social contract theory. There are still important contributions being made to these theories today and there are other important developments that might direct ethical theory in interesting directions in the 21st century. Two contributions, in particular, I would like to address briefly if only because they receive little treatment in conventional ethics textbooks and because they are inherently interesting and add to our moral landscape.
The first actually represents a resurgence of an 18th-century theory in ethics called the moral sense tradition. The idea is that there is an important innate component to morality which was often termed the moral sense. The economist Adam Smith was an advocate of this idea. In 1993 James Q. Wilson published a book titled The Moral Sense in which he makes the case that there may be tangible evidence for this innate component to morality.
He does not argue that morality is completely innate. Like Aristotle, he recognizes that moral actions must be practiced to become habitual and natural. But the very possibility of being moral at all is innate. Such sentiments as sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty are strongly affected by environment and training but they do have a strong innate component as well and research seems to be bearing this out. That there might be scientific evidence for this would not have surprised the likes of Charles Darwin who was also an advocate of the moral sense. Oddly enough Smith's book The Theory of Moral Sentiments was published exactly 100 years before Darwin's Origin of Species. Anyway, in The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin remarked that "any animal whatever endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience."
On the subject of the connection between religion and morality, there has been some interesting research that seems to indicate an innate component to religion as well. Perhaps this is not surprising given the close connection we make between religion and morality. This may provide a way out of the dilemma many scholars debate about which came first the moral rules or religious belief. If there is an innate component they may arise together and influence one another in many complex ways.
Two books, in particular, shed light on this subject. One book by Pascal Boyer titled Religion Explained examines the possibility of religion originating as an evolutionary response. The connections here to Darwin's comments above should be obvious. The important point to make about this line of thinking is that the notion that religion may have originated evolutionarily does not imply that there is no God. Given that religion is a human institution the emphasis is on how this arose and what effects it has on morality. Another treatment of this subject is Michael Shermer's book titled How We Believe. But, it is to Shermer's book on ethics that I want to turn now to share with you another approach to ethical theory.
Titled The Science of Good and Evil, Shermer's book attempts to provide a scientific reason for why people cheat, gossip, care, share, and follow the Golden Rule (this is the subtitle of the book!). He begins by pointing out the dangers of two extremes in morality: relativism and absolutism. We've discussed the problems with relativism early on, and seen at least somewhat, the problems with absolutism when addressing deontology. For Shermer, the best chance for a solid moral theory lies somewhere in the middle. Not too dissimilar from Rachels multiple strategies utilitarianism which he might have called a provisional moral theory.
This is exactly what Shermer advocates though it may be disturbing to think of morality in these terms. As he points out, every scientific theory is inherently provisional in that scientists recognize the possibility that evidence may be discovered in the future which will force us to alter or modify our theories. He claims that the same holds true for morality as well and puts forward a provisional morality which consists of four principles:
1. The Ask-First Principle:
The ask-first principle states that the moral agent should ask the moral recipient whether the behavior in question is moral or immoral.
This sounds like an obvious principle once stated but it is an interesting approach to the question of right and wrong since it forces us to consider those who are affected by our actions. Do you wonder whether it's wrong to lie to someone? Ask them first! They'll let you know!
2. The Happiness Principle:
The happiness principle states that it is a higher moral principle to always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind, and never seek happiness when it leads to someone else's unhappiness.
This turns out to be a fairly timeless principle advocated by Aristotle, Epicurus, and the current Dalai Lama. Happiness cannot be aimed at directly but is a by-product and the best way to be happy is to strive to make others happy.
3. The Liberty Principle:
The liberty principle states that it is a higher moral principle to always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind, and never to seek liberty when it leads to someone else's loss of liberty.
We'll be discussing John Stuart Mill's famous essay on liberty but this principle also has a rich history. Remember when we discussed Kant's theory he pointed out that "ought implies can." Morality requires that we have freedom.
4. The Moderation Principle:
The moderation principle states that when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice.
This principle is a variation on Barry Goldwater's famous quote: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Shermer's point is that extremism can certainly be a vice, especially when innocent people die.
In some ways, these sentiments are not unfamiliar to ethical theory but given our current scientific context, it shouldn't surprise us to see scholars seeking a scientific basis for morality. This need not conflict with our other foundations for morality. In fact, it may strengthen them.
Not only can we benefit from science informing morality, but science can be informed by morality as well. This will be especially true of many ethical issues such as abortion and euthanasia. A second important factor we need to discuss these issues freely is liberty. As a society, we need to address controversial issues and this can only be productive and successful if we recognize the importance of liberty of thought and discussion.
The first actually represents a resurgence of an 18th-century theory in ethics called the moral sense tradition. The idea is that there is an important innate component to morality which was often termed the moral sense. The economist Adam Smith was an advocate of this idea. In 1993 James Q. Wilson published a book titled The Moral Sense in which he makes the case that there may be tangible evidence for this innate component to morality.
He does not argue that morality is completely innate. Like Aristotle, he recognizes that moral actions must be practiced to become habitual and natural. But the very possibility of being moral at all is innate. Such sentiments as sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty are strongly affected by environment and training but they do have a strong innate component as well and research seems to be bearing this out. That there might be scientific evidence for this would not have surprised the likes of Charles Darwin who was also an advocate of the moral sense. Oddly enough Smith's book The Theory of Moral Sentiments was published exactly 100 years before Darwin's Origin of Species. Anyway, in The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin remarked that "any animal whatever endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience."
On the subject of the connection between religion and morality, there has been some interesting research that seems to indicate an innate component to religion as well. Perhaps this is not surprising given the close connection we make between religion and morality. This may provide a way out of the dilemma many scholars debate about which came first the moral rules or religious belief. If there is an innate component they may arise together and influence one another in many complex ways.
Two books, in particular, shed light on this subject. One book by Pascal Boyer titled Religion Explained examines the possibility of religion originating as an evolutionary response. The connections here to Darwin's comments above should be obvious. The important point to make about this line of thinking is that the notion that religion may have originated evolutionarily does not imply that there is no God. Given that religion is a human institution the emphasis is on how this arose and what effects it has on morality. Another treatment of this subject is Michael Shermer's book titled How We Believe. But, it is to Shermer's book on ethics that I want to turn now to share with you another approach to ethical theory.
Titled The Science of Good and Evil, Shermer's book attempts to provide a scientific reason for why people cheat, gossip, care, share, and follow the Golden Rule (this is the subtitle of the book!). He begins by pointing out the dangers of two extremes in morality: relativism and absolutism. We've discussed the problems with relativism early on, and seen at least somewhat, the problems with absolutism when addressing deontology. For Shermer, the best chance for a solid moral theory lies somewhere in the middle. Not too dissimilar from Rachels multiple strategies utilitarianism which he might have called a provisional moral theory.
This is exactly what Shermer advocates though it may be disturbing to think of morality in these terms. As he points out, every scientific theory is inherently provisional in that scientists recognize the possibility that evidence may be discovered in the future which will force us to alter or modify our theories. He claims that the same holds true for morality as well and puts forward a provisional morality which consists of four principles:
1. The Ask-First Principle:
The ask-first principle states that the moral agent should ask the moral recipient whether the behavior in question is moral or immoral.
This sounds like an obvious principle once stated but it is an interesting approach to the question of right and wrong since it forces us to consider those who are affected by our actions. Do you wonder whether it's wrong to lie to someone? Ask them first! They'll let you know!
2. The Happiness Principle:
The happiness principle states that it is a higher moral principle to always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind, and never seek happiness when it leads to someone else's unhappiness.
This turns out to be a fairly timeless principle advocated by Aristotle, Epicurus, and the current Dalai Lama. Happiness cannot be aimed at directly but is a by-product and the best way to be happy is to strive to make others happy.
3. The Liberty Principle:
The liberty principle states that it is a higher moral principle to always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind, and never to seek liberty when it leads to someone else's loss of liberty.
We'll be discussing John Stuart Mill's famous essay on liberty but this principle also has a rich history. Remember when we discussed Kant's theory he pointed out that "ought implies can." Morality requires that we have freedom.
4. The Moderation Principle:
The moderation principle states that when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice.
This principle is a variation on Barry Goldwater's famous quote: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Shermer's point is that extremism can certainly be a vice, especially when innocent people die.
In some ways, these sentiments are not unfamiliar to ethical theory but given our current scientific context, it shouldn't surprise us to see scholars seeking a scientific basis for morality. This need not conflict with our other foundations for morality. In fact, it may strengthen them.
Not only can we benefit from science informing morality, but science can be informed by morality as well. This will be especially true of many ethical issues such as abortion and euthanasia. A second important factor we need to discuss these issues freely is liberty. As a society, we need to address controversial issues and this can only be productive and successful if we recognize the importance of liberty of thought and discussion.