What is Morality?
This is a question we'll take the entire semester to examine but we may benefit from some introductory remarks to give us some direction as to how to answer the question. As we'll see, there are many answers to the question of morality and Rachels suggests that we begin by attempting to formulate a "minimum conception." Given all the variations in ethical theory, there may be some common ground that all these theories share. Perhaps this common ground can be seen by looking at how people attempt to resolve moral dilemmas. Most problems we encounter in morality are not cases where there is a clear right answer and a clear wrong answer and we choose the right answer. No, most problems are dilemmas. That is, there are several options each involving problems themselves and no one solution is perfect. In a dilemma, there is often a conflict of values and applying one often betrays another. Consider the cases Rachels gives us. Each involves a conflict that is not easily resolvable.
But, if you look at each case you'll notice that the attempt to come to some resolution proceeds similarly. We attempt to analyze the facts of the case and provide reasons for acting in a certain way. This might provide us with some clues as to important factors in morality.
1. We need to establish the facts of the case we're addressing.
2. We need to examine the reasons for acting.
3. We need to make a decision.
Each of these can be very difficult. For example, with many medical cases, it is often not easy to establish just what the facts are. Is the patient terminal? Is there any chance of recovery? Is the patient in pain? These are important factors to consider when we formulate our reasons for acting.
The purpose of any ethical theory is to help us through step two. We need a guide to formulate reasons for acting and evaluate whether those reasons are justified or not. Consider some of the arguments offered in the cases in chapter one:
The benefits argument
The argument that we should not use people as means to an end
The argument from the wrongness of killing
The argument that we should save as many as we can
The argument from the sanctity of human life
The argument from the wrongness of discriminating against the handicapped
The slippery slope argument
These arguments will not be on point in every case. For some cases, other arguments may apply. The point is that we need a way to sift through the various arguments and decide what the right thing to do is. Needless to say, this is often very difficult.
A third factor that adds to the difficulty is the need to make a decision. Unlike many philosophical issues which can be debated for centuries, moral dilemmas demand immediate action. Eventually, and usually sooner rather than later, a decision must be made. Often we won't have time to sift through every argument and every fact. This is why a class in morality is useful. It allows us the time to deliberate and analyze our arguments and prepare for a time when we may not have the luxury of time. If we can familiarize ourselves with moral reasoning in advance of needing it we can be more comfortable in our decision making under pressure when our reasoning capacity is not as sharp as it needs to be to evaluate competing claims and values. The Stoic philosopher Seneca called this pre-meditation. We should take time to reflect and plan for what might happen because when the time comes we have to act and may not be able to think through all the details. As he put it, "reckon on everything, expect everything." We'll discuss the Stoics later in the semester.
Have we arrived at a useful minimum conception of morality? The key seems to lie in step two. As Rachels puts it "moral judgments must be backed by good reasons." Why? Because moral judgments involve what ought to be the case. Not only for ourselves but for others as well. In most cases, moral judgments affect others and so we need to make sure our reasons for acting are well justified. Think of it this way. Suppose I tell you that you ought to give a portion of your income to charity. You may immediately agree with me but then again you may not. In any case, you should want me to give you a reason why you should do this. And, you should want the reason to be a pretty good one, that is, it should be well justified. Suppose my reason is that I said so. Is that good enough? It shouldn't be. You should want more and I'm guessing that you already do.
This brings us to the second point in Rachel's minimum conception of morality. Morality should involve impartial reasoning which takes into account the interests of all the people involved not just my own. For many of life's decisions, a self-referential reason is just fine. For example, you ask me why I drink orange juice in the morning and I answer by saying I like orange juice. I eat the way I want to, I dress the way I want to, I read what I want to. But, for many moral decisions "I want to" doesn't seem like a sufficiently justifiable reason. Is it OK to harm another person just because you want to? Is it OK to cheat on an exam just because I want to? The answer to both questions seems to be no. We may need to examine some ethical theories in detail to see exactly why, but even at this early point in the semester Rachels has provided us with some powerful examples of why the answer is no. That is, why does morality have to involve impartiality? The simple answer is that our actions affect others and because of this we should take their interests into account. As Rachels points out this rule prevents us from acting arbitrarily or treating people differently when there's no good reason for doing so.
This brings up an interesting final point about rules. As we'll see each ethical theory we examine attempt to formulate a rule or general principle to help us reason through ethical questions. Of course, rules have exceptions and can often be difficult to apply but this doesn't change the fact that we need rules and can benefit from having them. Given this, we should work against the existence of arbitrary rules. To be beneficial, they need to be fixed. To illustrate consider this example. Suppose we want to play cards and the rules are not fixed but rather fluid and arbitrary. So, sometimes my two pair beats your full house. Now, do you want to play me poker? I didn't think so! Of course, rules are subject to modification but we do need a foundation that is more or less stable to make the process of modification predictable. This is why our conversation concerning ethical theories will take into account theories that are centuries old as well as those of more recent philosophers. We can see the process of development but also recognize how many of our principles have remained stable over time and seem to be universal and timeless. It is to this question of whether there are universal moral principles that we now turn as we examine relativism.
But, if you look at each case you'll notice that the attempt to come to some resolution proceeds similarly. We attempt to analyze the facts of the case and provide reasons for acting in a certain way. This might provide us with some clues as to important factors in morality.
1. We need to establish the facts of the case we're addressing.
2. We need to examine the reasons for acting.
3. We need to make a decision.
Each of these can be very difficult. For example, with many medical cases, it is often not easy to establish just what the facts are. Is the patient terminal? Is there any chance of recovery? Is the patient in pain? These are important factors to consider when we formulate our reasons for acting.
The purpose of any ethical theory is to help us through step two. We need a guide to formulate reasons for acting and evaluate whether those reasons are justified or not. Consider some of the arguments offered in the cases in chapter one:
The benefits argument
The argument that we should not use people as means to an end
The argument from the wrongness of killing
The argument that we should save as many as we can
The argument from the sanctity of human life
The argument from the wrongness of discriminating against the handicapped
The slippery slope argument
These arguments will not be on point in every case. For some cases, other arguments may apply. The point is that we need a way to sift through the various arguments and decide what the right thing to do is. Needless to say, this is often very difficult.
A third factor that adds to the difficulty is the need to make a decision. Unlike many philosophical issues which can be debated for centuries, moral dilemmas demand immediate action. Eventually, and usually sooner rather than later, a decision must be made. Often we won't have time to sift through every argument and every fact. This is why a class in morality is useful. It allows us the time to deliberate and analyze our arguments and prepare for a time when we may not have the luxury of time. If we can familiarize ourselves with moral reasoning in advance of needing it we can be more comfortable in our decision making under pressure when our reasoning capacity is not as sharp as it needs to be to evaluate competing claims and values. The Stoic philosopher Seneca called this pre-meditation. We should take time to reflect and plan for what might happen because when the time comes we have to act and may not be able to think through all the details. As he put it, "reckon on everything, expect everything." We'll discuss the Stoics later in the semester.
Have we arrived at a useful minimum conception of morality? The key seems to lie in step two. As Rachels puts it "moral judgments must be backed by good reasons." Why? Because moral judgments involve what ought to be the case. Not only for ourselves but for others as well. In most cases, moral judgments affect others and so we need to make sure our reasons for acting are well justified. Think of it this way. Suppose I tell you that you ought to give a portion of your income to charity. You may immediately agree with me but then again you may not. In any case, you should want me to give you a reason why you should do this. And, you should want the reason to be a pretty good one, that is, it should be well justified. Suppose my reason is that I said so. Is that good enough? It shouldn't be. You should want more and I'm guessing that you already do.
This brings us to the second point in Rachel's minimum conception of morality. Morality should involve impartial reasoning which takes into account the interests of all the people involved not just my own. For many of life's decisions, a self-referential reason is just fine. For example, you ask me why I drink orange juice in the morning and I answer by saying I like orange juice. I eat the way I want to, I dress the way I want to, I read what I want to. But, for many moral decisions "I want to" doesn't seem like a sufficiently justifiable reason. Is it OK to harm another person just because you want to? Is it OK to cheat on an exam just because I want to? The answer to both questions seems to be no. We may need to examine some ethical theories in detail to see exactly why, but even at this early point in the semester Rachels has provided us with some powerful examples of why the answer is no. That is, why does morality have to involve impartiality? The simple answer is that our actions affect others and because of this we should take their interests into account. As Rachels points out this rule prevents us from acting arbitrarily or treating people differently when there's no good reason for doing so.
This brings up an interesting final point about rules. As we'll see each ethical theory we examine attempt to formulate a rule or general principle to help us reason through ethical questions. Of course, rules have exceptions and can often be difficult to apply but this doesn't change the fact that we need rules and can benefit from having them. Given this, we should work against the existence of arbitrary rules. To be beneficial, they need to be fixed. To illustrate consider this example. Suppose we want to play cards and the rules are not fixed but rather fluid and arbitrary. So, sometimes my two pair beats your full house. Now, do you want to play me poker? I didn't think so! Of course, rules are subject to modification but we do need a foundation that is more or less stable to make the process of modification predictable. This is why our conversation concerning ethical theories will take into account theories that are centuries old as well as those of more recent philosophers. We can see the process of development but also recognize how many of our principles have remained stable over time and seem to be universal and timeless. It is to this question of whether there are universal moral principles that we now turn as we examine relativism.