A Romp Through Ethics for Complete Beginners (1/7)

right hi I'm Marianne Tolbert's you have quite a few of you know me but there are a few new faces here so I'm going to hope get to know your names very quickly and some of your names I'm going to forget and if I call you you or something like that you'll just have to get used to it I'm afraid we're being podcasts so welcome to everyone who's watching this on a podcast I see all these slides that I'm using are going to be available either in handout form or with the podcast so you should be able to follow everything that I'm doing without needing to take copious notes ok let's get started ok in this session we're going to be doing all these things it's not going to take us too long to go through the first three the last one may take a little bit longer and but anyway will these the things that we're going to do and let's start right away with looking at a moral dilemma I want you to imagine that your friends has just come home from the hairdresser's and she walked in she says what do you think and do you think yuck ok you've got a problem haven't you what's what's your problem lack of right whether you tell the truth or not ok but that's that's not a problem because I mean we know we should tell the truth shouldn't we so it can't be that on its own that's the problem ok so if you tell her the truth what are you not being you or what you fear you're not being is kind ok so we've got two rules - two rules that we like to obey in everyday life don't we be truthful be kind and the problem with this situation is it looks as if we can't be both it looks as if you've got to choose between honesty and kindness and that's not a comfortable situation to be in is it ok moral dilemmas of this sort of common and the reason they're common is that the rules of everyday life like be kind be generous be truthful whatever our general rules that have to be applied in particular situations and as a result of that they come into conflict can you think of any more moral dilemmas can you think of any that you've come across perhaps in your everyday life what about at school when a teacher pressed you up against the wall and said who did that what's your problem here and you know you know who did it you don't want to rat on your mates exactly so be loyal as in against to be polite to your teacher or be truthful or something again it comes into conflict here in all these situations you've got a general rule that come into conflict with another general rule because a particular situation brings them into conflict and you might think that it's easy to get out of this particular dilemma and one I mean let's have a straw poll okay so if you're in this situation who would tell your friends that you think your hair looks terrible maybe not quite like that you you okay one two okay quite a few of you putting up your hand okay who would be kind most of you okay that's interesting but you you probably go or at some time in your life you will have gone through this sort of way of thinking well sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind if you're kinds to her she might go around looking like that for the next six months magnin she and and that would be to be cruel to her because when she realized how awful she'd look it's a bit like looking at those photographs of yourself in the 70s isn't it ah and also another thing you might try is well it's only a white lie if I tell her she looks fine it's it's not a black lie I'm not doing it for bad reasons I'm doing it for good reasons so we what we have to do here is that we are rationally required by dilemmas like this to reflect on our values we say okay what is truth what is it to be honest or what is kindness what is it to be kind and if I were God I would make sure there is many moral dilemmas as possible because I would want people to be asking themselves well how do I act in order to be kind what do I need to do in order to be honest in this situation being honest is difficult does that mean I heard that is that an excuse not to be honest etc all these things are prompted prompting us to think about our values and about what we should do in particular situations but we yearn for these moral rules don't we we we yearn to have things like be truthful be kind be generous be loyal etc because that it makes life easy doesn't it it takes decisions away from us and and in this situation a lot of people attempted to make further rules these are the sort of rules so that they're tempted to make so here's one when kindness and honesty conflict I'll always be honest now I bet you know people who've made that rule for themselves do you yes okay lots of nods here or possible new rule to when kindness and honesty conflict I'll always be kind do you know anyone who's who's living by that sort of rule yeah I again lots of lots of nods yes okay there are different ways in which you might be honest I mean nobody's good well actually that's not true and very few people are going to actually say but a few would say yuck I mean your sixteen-year-old son is not going to hold back well he might okay but we yearn for moral rules because moral rules make life easy that's why we're tempted to make rules like the former - which which are not so obviously useful actually but in this yearning for rules we reveal ourselves to be moral generalists okay a moral generalist is someone who believes that morality is governed by rules and one reason you might think this is people think of morality is as principles set of principles and of course what are our principles but rules by which to guide us in our thoughts and in our actions so if you think that morality is necessarily principled and by that you mean that it's necessarily rule governs then you're a moral generalist okay but oh right okay there's this little complication here it doesn't matter how complicated the rules are that you think we're governed by the fact is if you think that morally we're governed by rules then you are some sort of moral generalist okay particularly is purple ever let me try that again if I take a run at it particular ist's deny that moral reasoning is governed by rules of any kind okay Jonathan Dancy here's a reading University he's a particular Asst so he doesn't think that moral rules sorry morality is governed by rules at all we might have a look later and ask ourselves exactly what he means by that but here's his arguments for it okay he claims that all reasons for acting are context-sensitive okay let's just have a quick look at reasons for acting I mean when I ask you to pass me a pen okay your reason for acting is that you wanted to do what I wanted you to do and you believe that passing me that pen would be a way of doing it okay so those were your reasons for acting so whenever we act actually it's not always when we act as we'll see you next week that we have reasons for acting but when we act and we have reasons for acting these reasons says Dancy are context sensitive and what he means by that is that in some contexts their reasons for acting and in other contexts their reasons against acting are their reasons for not acting if you prefer so let's have a look at an example for that imagine that your reason for refusing to perform action eh okay that action might be passing me a pen for example but your reason for refusing to perform action eh is that in performing action eh you would be telling a lie okay I'm not going to do that because it would be lying if I did that that's a perfectly good reason for acting isn't it okay well then ask yourself does this mean that you should refuse to perform any and every act that has the property of being a lie telling does it so okay is it let me ask you two questions firstly is it often the case with you that you don't act you don't do something because if you did it it would be lying okay so it's a lie is sometimes a reason for you to act to put your hand up or not to act I should say I'm going to assume you've all put your hand up here even if I'm wrong okay so the fact that something has the property of being alive as an action has the property of being a lie is sometimes at least reason for you to act or reason for you not to act okay but it doesn't mean that every time forever times when sometimes you think you ought to lie that it's your moral duty to lie can anyone give me an example okay so if the Nazis come to the door and they say are there any Jews here you don't say yes actually three of them under the bed it's your moral duty to lie so it can't be the case that the having the property of being a lie telling is always a reason against an action fair enough or imagine that your reason for performing action be for actually doing something this time is that in performing action be you would be keeping a promise okay so how many of you who have done something because in doing it you would be keeping a promise okay so all of us act because we believe that keeping a promise is a good thing but does this mean that we always keep promises that we would perform and we believe that others should perform each and every action that would be a promise keeping do we know can anyone give me an example an imaginative example of your moral duty absolutely so you promise to take your children to the cinema but on the night your wife your husband falls ill and it's more important that you take them to hospital then that you keep that promise again it seems that the fact that an action has the property of being a promise keeping isn't always and everywhere reason to perform that action that's what Dancy means by reasons for acting a context sensitive the context that you're in changes your reasons for acting in some contexts the fact that something's a lie is reason not to tell it and in other contexts that it's a lie isn't reason not to tell it okay is that good so that's dancies reason for being a particular Asst so Dancy believes that no reason for acting is always reason for or reason against performing an action every reason for action is context-sensitive well so he doesn't think that well I think actually I'm just about to say this so let me check okay so particularly that no moral rule is always and everywhere true particular it's believed that moral rules like don't like keep promises and so on are what philosophers call rules of thumb now a rule of thumb is a rule that you use because it's useful and it's useful most of the time but it's not one that's unbreakable if you come to a situation where it's clearly clear that this rule isn't going to be useful to follow then then you just don't follow it so moral rules like the ones we've talked about if there rules of thumb are not absolutely true they're not moral absolutes so don't lie is not always and everywhere true so the question is were wouldn't the Nazis have been justified in giving as a reason that they were following orders well presumably dancy would say no because dancy would think you should follow orders is the rule that in some contexts is true and in other contexts is false because he thinks that no moral rule is always and everywhere true so you should follow orders or you should follow rules it's not always and everywhere true and that means the context the context in which they were deciding should I follow orders or not was a context in which dan C would say probably or certainly I would say that they shouldn't follow orders in this context that the answer to this question in that context would be no whereas if you ordered me now to explain again what I meant by the I might take that as something I should follow perhaps not time would matter no but you don't decide a context you're just in a context so if you're the Nazis are at the door you you know exactly you don't don't look so worried Lee at me you are all looking worried you make this sort of decision all the time whenever you face a moral dilemma whenever your friend says do you like it and you think yuck that provides you with a context in which a moral decision must be made and in that decision in that particular decision one there are two rules be kind be honest and the question is should you in this context follow that rule or that's rule or neither so you're all used to doing this this isn't something all I'm doing is laying it out for you clearly as a philosopher should okay now I'm going to take two more questions because I can see two more but then I'm going to get on ok I have heard people call particular ist's that I don't know enough about what is being a situational list is to be able to say for sure but I suspect yes it would be interesting to know how it differs if it does but I suspect it doesn't but I might be wrong is it not a question of ranking priorities to attempt to act for the greater of two goods well if you don't mind I'm going to suspend that question because I think I'm going to answer it later so may I do that and but but notice that the separate rules that I talked about people making I'm always going to put kindness before honesty or I'm always going to put honesty before kindness that's another sort of rule isn't it and that's a rule that prioritizes other rules so there are lots of different sorts of rules that we might look at okay let's let's get on okay I'm just a show of hands how many of you think your particular ists here oh not everyone but nearly everyone I'm dying to us why those who aren't particularly so on but they're mine we might come to the reasons why you're not in a minute okay I just want to point out that in talking about the things that we've been talking about for the last ten minutes we've been engaged in moral theorizing now that's a very different sort of activity from the activity that we're engaged in when we're actually trying to make decisions about how we should act so when you're thinking shall I be kind or shall I be honest that's one type of thinking about morality but when you're thinking things that are sort that we've been thinking should we be generalists or particular ist's or should we always follow moral rules or not that's a different type of moral thinking and moral theorizing is called second order moral thinking whereas everyday decision making about how we should act is called first order moral thinking and that's because moral theorizing is thinking about our thinking about how we should act okay philosophers are good at this but do you see what I mean we when we think about whether to be kind or we're honest we're thinking about how we should act and when we're asking well should we follow rules like we should be kind we should be honest we're thinking about our thinking about how we should act with me know I haven't created any well I'm creating rules but not moral rules about how to use language I am saying you should use second order moral thinking for theorizing and first sort of moral thinking for thinking about your actions that is making a rule but it's not a moral rule is it it's a it's a rule of language okay someday it might become a moral rule if I think you're disobeying it okay can we sort these questions into either first-order practical questions or second-order theoretical questions and we're going to give you a minute to think about it for yourself and then we'll go through it together so don't yell out the answers just think about them for yourself that you've only got ten seconds so you're not gonna get very far okay it's lying morally acceptable is that a first order or a second order question let's let's go over it again shall we okay first order moral thinking is asking about yourself about how you should act okay and so if you ask it's lying morally acceptable aren't you saying to yourself should I feel free to lie or not okay no you're now making me question it okay shall we leave that one I was going to call that one first order because I thought of it as being about actions to the extent that it is about deciding how to act it's a first order question okay what about should female circumcision be illegal Oh Erica no I absolutely refuse to explain that here you don't answer that question what about everyone else is that a first-order question or a second-order question whoa we're nearly getting there but okay I think that's the first-order question for the same reason what about how can we know whether a given or that a given moral judgment is correct second you're getting getting there okay could it ever be right to kill an innocent human being first we are getting there aren't we definitely what makes a moral judgment right or wrong second very much you see that's you're not thinking at all about how to act are you what should I do you're asking here about well what is here's a moral judgment what makes it true or false we're going to be asking this question in a minute what's up way similar to the first well no because right or wrong here actually in fact that's well pointed out yes but what do I mean by right or wrong here and I shouldn't have done this this is a mistake that I've made can anyone point out what the mistake is what should I have written here true or false actually is what I meant do you see what I mean so I was that question I mean you're making me see that that was a bit of sloppy thinking on my part so if I can do it that means you can do it very occasionally and not certain certainly not beyond lecture three I should have asked there what makes a moral judgment true or false rather than right or wrong by using right or wrong and I confused it with morality I apologize okay what about this one is it wrong to kill embryos that have the genes for Huntington's disease first order or second order first order well done what sort of evidence can we give for saying that something's right or wrong second good okay we need to work on that just a little bit but only a little bit well done you're right to make the distinction between something's being immoral and something's being illegal we're going to look at that in depth next week so I won't look at it here but in order to make something illegal we're usually asking whether either it's right or wrong because we would only want to make illegal something that's not right or it could be a matter of practicalities couldn't it I mean we've either got to drive on the right or the left doesn't matter which it's certainly not a moral question not what this one disagrees it's French wife about that for anyone who didn't hear hear that okay so that's we started off looking at moral dilemmas and I hope that what you've got from looking at moral dilemmas is that quite often in the particular situations in which we find ourselves we find ourselves in a dilemma because we find that two moral rules or possibly moral moral rules sometimes come into conflict we can't obey all of them and therefore we have a dilemma it looks as if we I mean it's a very difficult dilemma because both things seem to be right and yet we can't do both of them so I hope that's shown as something about rules it's shown the importance do it our rules central to morality or not but now let's look at moral truth this is the second thing we're going to do ok kitten consider the following statements the earth is elliptical the cat is tabby these are straightforward true or false if you looked at my Katia puss and I said is that cat tabby you would say yes yes you would say yes I suspect okay what makes those sentence is true are facts about in the first case the earth and its shape and in the second case my cat and the fact that it's tabby okay straightforward in in philosophy we talk sometimes about the redundancy theory of truth because if you say the cat is tabby and the cat is tabby is true in each case you seem to be giving the same information because if you assert the cat is tabby you are saying in a way the cat is tabby is true aren't you so they're straight forwardly true I mean there are huge problems I should say with the redundancy theory of truth so we won't get into that here but but just to point out that these are very straightforward it even sounds a silly when I say what makes it true that the cat is tabby is that the cat is tabby yes yes absolutely and all sorts of things I should just like to point out that the cat is tabby is true because the cat is tabby notice that here I'm I'm quoting this okay I'm I'm mentioning this sentence and I'm saying of it that it's true because of this fact obtaining no quotation marks around this so here I'm using the cat is tabby and here I'm just mentioning it very important distinction that I'm sure is going to come up again sometime in these lectures okay but but these are straightforwardly true or false and this the things that make them straightforwardly true or false are empirically verifiable facts but if we look at statements such as it's wrong to kill human beings or we should always tell the truth well are there facts that make these statements true or false and if there are what sort of facts are they okay now when I asked that first question a lot of you shocked your heads I said are there facts that make these things true or false and a lot of people went No okay that's interesting we've got a room full of moral skeptics or at least a few people it's certainly true isn't it that if there are facts that make these things true they're not the sort of facts we can touch look at see here put them in my pockets but nor can we conduct experiments to see whether it's true that lying is wrong or whatever it was that I used and so some people think that this shows that there aren't moral facts and a few people in this room obviously agree with them so whereas the earth is elliptical or the cat is tabby are actually they are true or false and they're made sure false by facts the thought is that things like lying is wrong or you should tell the truth or or whatever they're not made true or false by facts sir question arises are they true or false at all perhaps okay well if there are no moral facts then perhaps moral statements are neither true nor false or perhaps we're free to decide for ourselves whether they're true or false perhaps it's just a matter of agreeing with each other that they should be true or false or something like that okay quick strawpoll put your hands up if you think that there are no moral facts no don't shut out just put your hand up okay we've got a few moral skepticism and looking unsure so I think that's fair enough okay if you'd like to learn more about that we're not we're not going to talk about moral skepticism anymore at least in this session we might do later in the series but here's a websites that you might use to check up on it and of course you've got this written in your notes so you don't need to write it down and it'll be available with the podcast okay most moral philosophers or most philosophers believe that there are moral facts it is not the case that most philosophers and moral skeptics what sort of fact is a moral fact well here we are here are a few we're going to be looking in this series of lectures at four different theories about the sort of fact that makes a moral statement true or false a virtue ethicist believes that an action is right if a virtuous person would perform it so it's facts about who's virtuous and what they do that make true quest about right or wrong so lying is wrong is true if a virtuous person would accept that lying is wrong and not lie etc okay it's not a fact like that cats being happy is it but it's still a fact isn't it oh yes defining virtue oh yeah don't don't worry we're going to have great fun with these theories we're going to devote a week to each of these theories so we'll have plenty of time to talk about that but I just want to point out that it's just possible that when you were thinking about the facts that make true or false moral statements you might have been a bit parochial in your thinking about what a fact is because if you think a fact is the sort of thing you can see or touch or put into your pocket or or that sort of thing then then you might have missed the fact that there are facts like this okay none cognitivism says that an action is right if a person with a stable and general perspective would approve of it okay you might think that there's something rather similar here but okay and again you're thinking I can see you thinking what's that what kind of fact is this okay we'll look at what kind of fact this is later in the series deontologists say that an action is right if it falls under a rule that prescribes it so let's do a little bit of revision okay I've given you two technical terms earlier today and you can apply one of them to a day ontology thinks that an action is right if it falls under a rule that prescribes it so rule like keep promises or be kind okay is a deontologist a particular or a generalist put up your hand if you think he's a particular escape route up your hand if you think he's a generalist well done okay good we're good we're getting the terminology right a generalist is someone who believes that there are moral rules a particular astiz someone who believes all moral reasons are context-sensitive okay a utilitarian different sort of fact to make true a moral statement he thinks that an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number so telling that lie to the Nazis is the right action if it produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number well there are facts about that let me ask you a question will I I'm sure I'll ask this again dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was it the right thing to do or not if you're a utilitarian you think that it was the right thing if it produced more happiness than it took away and that it wasn't the right thing if it did the opposite well we don't know the fact of that matter but there was a fact there wasn't there so there's a fact that's rather difficult different from the sort of facts that makes EDA puces at a be true but but it's nevertheless of fact isn't it so four different accounts of the facts that make true moral statements so anyone who adopts any of these moral theories is not a moral skeptic they do think there are facts that make moral statements true but they don't think the facts are necessarily facts that we can check empirically or that we can look at or whatever okay and this is good we're doing well here I'm pleased that we've got this far in this session okay but this is the biggie okay or I think it is in this okay there's one question we're going to take one question before I go on to it is there another word you could use rather than facts because I would like to think of a fact it's something that could be tested and proved to be true no I absolutely refuse to change my language here because the fact is what I mean and I think you ought to change your view of what a fact is because does love exist yes okay most of us here are are romantics we believe that love exists is this a fact it sort of move is this something that the can be established empirically well actually we could do perhaps we could I mean maybe I've just established that most people in this room believe that love exists for the course they could all be wrong do you see what I mean all right here's another question then just because I'm looking forward to persuading you of this do possibilities exist okay most people think yes is this something that we can establish empirically no and we're not talking about probabilities we're talking about possibilities here can you know week if you actual eyes a possibility then what exists of course is an act an actualized possibility which is not of course a possibility at all it is an actuality what I'm asking you is well whether possibilities exist okay ah all the facts that make true this is possible an empirical fact I'm sorry I should actually I've I've dug myself a terrible hole here and the reason I dug myself a hole it I should have made a distinction between empirical possibility and logical possibility and what I was actually asking about was logical possibilities if you like we'll talk about that in question time but I think having dunked myself a hole I'm now going to kick sand in it and move on quickly okay we're going to look at moral truth and whether it's absolute or relative okay firstly I'm going to define both terms because we need to know what we're talking about okay you're a moral absolutist if you believe that there's at least one moral statement that's true absolutely okay an example of that here's a non moral example of an absolute truth the earth is round I should have said elliptical jin-tae anyway just ignore that complication the earth is round is true everywhere for everyone at all times irrespective of what people believe ok so even when everyone believed for perfectly good reasons that the earth is flat I mean they are good reasons aren't they look at it my god she this is bad example isn't it the lecture-room slopes even when everyone believes that the earth was flat they were wrong the earth was round then ok so that's a non moral example of an absolute truth and what makes it an absolute truth is it's true everywhere for everyone at all times irrespective of what people believe so you're a moral absolutist if you believe that there is at least one now notice that at least one you don't need more than one you just need one moral statement that's true everywhere for everyone at all times and irrespective of what people believe ok that's what moral absolutism is let's have a look at moral relativism you're a moral relativist if you believe that all moral statements are true or false only relative to something now you might be thinking what does this mean well it can anyone think of another example of an area of discourse ok of language where statements in that area of discourse are true only relative to something or other there are some very very common ones let's see if you can think of some put your thinking caps on that's that's quite a good one yes the house is big because big in relation to what to other houses presumably it's not big in relation to a skyscraper yep so ok that's that's good one any others that someone's clever yes clever in relation to what they might be clever in in the domain of this classroom but not clever outside this classroom or something like that okay can anyone think of a slightly different sort of example here's an obvious one your French wife does she go to France often and stuff she ring you up and tell you it's five o'clock well let's let's say she done she could and what do you argue with her and say no it's not it's six o'clock or four o'clock or whatever it is right okay well those of us who don't insist on the time of the Sun would they have it would they have an argument with the French friends who told him it was five o'clock when looking at their watch in England it was actually never is it going to be four o'clock or six o'clock four o'clock thank you no you wouldn't why wouldn't you because statements about time so there's an area of discourse temporal statement statements about time where the truth of all those statements is relative to and what it's relative to is a time zone isn't it okay so we are used to the idea of the truth being relative to something are that happens often and I'll give you a couple of other examples in a minute but here are some non moral examples of different types of relativism so you can believe that moral statements are true only relative to cultures so for example here's a nun moral statement a meal consists of meat and two veg well in relation to my father's generation and culture that was true my father would certainly have believed that for him it was true my generation not not so much I shouldn't think there are many people in this room for whom that was be true but then it was true prayers are said five times a day that's another non moral statement that's false in our culture but there are cultures in which it is true so that's cultural relativism so there are statements the truth of which is our relative to cultures and you can believe that moral statements are true only relative to individuals so you Madame what's your name yes in the nice screen Sybil do you like sardines no how can you not like sorry I love sardines so sardines are tasty is true for me and false for Sybil straight for when we're not going to argue about that because what makes it true that sardines are tasty for me is a personal preference isn't it what makes it false that sardines are tasty is true for Sybil is another personal preference Sybil doesn't like side the sardines I do so sardines are tasty is true for me and false for Sybil again perfectly standard right no I said these are non moral examples okay so red is the most beautiful color what's your name Volker okay do you like red best I'm very glad about that okay I do yes so red is the most beautiful color is true for me and false for Fulco okay so again now these are statements that are true relative to individuals and you're a moral relative or an individual moral relativist if you believe that moral statements are true only in relation to individuals so abortion might be right for me but wrong for you you might say or you can believe that moral statements are true only relative to situations so lying is wrong is true in some contexts and false in others I'm using context and situation they're in interchangeably so that's perhaps reason to think that again we you were right to think there's yes it's cold here well that might be true here but not true where you are okay so lots of different types of moral relativism there are also different types of absolutism but we haven't looked at any yet we will in a minute okay let's do another little put up your hand if you're a moral relativist cor lummy right okay that's nearly all of you there are a couple who didn't have their hands up that doesn't surprise me okay now I want to know why please ooh you've suddenly gotten quite ok there's Erica's answer does anyone else have an answer Wow good question and I'm going to give you two answers the first one I'm going to give you now and it's looking at the way I've defined it which I said that an absolutist yeah I broke my thumb recently and the one thing I can't do is turn pages okay an absolutist at least one moral statement is absolutely true relativist all moral statements are true only relative to something or other okay so you tell me look at the logical words here you're doing philosophy now so you've got to look at the logical words at least one and all so you're an absolutist if you believe at least one moral statement is absolutely true and you're a relativist if you believe that all moral statements are true only relative to something rather so can you be both a moral absolutist and a relativist no not not so far we will have a look later on it why it's so tempting to want to be to say that you might be both it would be like saying everybody in this room is clever and then later on I say folker isn't clever sorry forgive me Folker this is okay I've contradicted myself haven't I I must have done because if all of you are P then it can't be the case that one of you isn't P can it right good let's establish that nothing like a bit of logic right we still haven't got any answers from you though I'm just about to carry on moving okay what what why coming Ural you're all clear that your moral relativists I want to know why God right okay so you're arguing from exhaustion you you've had a look at all the moral statements you can think of in your mind you can't see any of them that are absolutely true and therefore you're inclined to think you're probably a relativist none of them passed the test okay I should imagine that quite a few of you think exactly that any other arguments for moral relativism of some kind and generally good you use the word instances would you change it for one of two other words that we've used in this context I'm putting you on the spot here and that's rather not very fair okay it situations or contexts exactly so so usually we'd say it's wrong to kill but you can imagine you're saying contexts or situations in which it wouldn't be wrong to kill and and I think we probably could all imagine such situations so do you see that you're using dances argument actually aren't you to say that the rule don't kill is not a moral absolute good okay so you're going something for situation relativism aren't you you're saying that moral rules are nowhere always and everywhere true because there are always situations in which they're false okay it can't be both wrong and right to kill and if you're in a situation where it looks as if you ought to kill someone it it looks as if that's a situation where it's not wrong to kill that person doesn't it well if you if you have with I put my pen we've often got different reasons for doing the same thing but if you say okay this is the class of actions that are killings okay each one of these is a killing if you say all killings all killing is wrong then you're saying of each of those that it's wrong okay then you come to this one and you think Oh actually I ought to do this unless I kill Sibyl a bomb is gonna go off that'll kill everybody in continuing educational or worse everybody in Oxford University I mean obviously she's got to go hasn't she done doesn't this mean that even if all these are still wrong this one is a killing that isn't wrong or okay you wouldn't necessary well maybe you would say it was right you could say that it's wrong but we could actually use priorities here couldn't we [Music] well it's true that no utilitarian is going to accept that because a utilitarian won't because he would think that if a killing produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number as I'm sorry simple this one would then it wouldn't be wrong but I'm still I I think you could still think whether you can think something is wrong and still do it is a question that we're going to be looking at later in the and still think you should do it sorry is a question we'll be looking at later when we do can't yes I'm not sure child and incest yeah so you're inclined to absolutism you you think that you think that we shouldn't have sex with children is a moral absolute okay I mean there might be some people who who are inclined to agree with that but whether it's an absolute is another question one more and then I'm moving on well again let's go back to the distinction I made earlier between a rule of thumb and an absolute and absolute is a rule that is unbreakable you don't break it in any situation it holds in every situation a rule of thumb is a so this is my broken thumb a rule of thumb is one that when you get to it usually you would fall it maybe you would follow it every single time in your life but you can imagine that a time would come when actually it wouldn't told and when you should break it and if you believe that then you believe it's a rule of thumb not a not an absolute okay so if you think you usually shouldn't kill people then you don't think all killing is wrong you're not an absolutist about killing you use you have a rule of thumb or at least I hope you do that killing is wrong on the whole you wouldn't kill anyone but but you can imagine a situation where maybe killing would be the right thing to do perhaps the simple one is the one in point okay you still haven't given me many arguments but luckily I prepared a few myself earlier okay here are some arguments for moral relativism some people believe that we should be relativists because all moral views should be respected so if you believe that abortion is right and I believe that abortion is wrong I must respect your view and thinks that abortion is right for you and wrong for me so that's why we might be relativists all we might think well different people differ in their moral beliefs so you think abortion is right sorry this is getting to be a bit of a hackneyed example isn't it okay you think killing is right and I think killing is wrong and you know it's entirely up to you so you know you you carry on believing what you believe so we become individual relativists at this point all we think with different cultures different differ in their moral beliefs so the Somalians i understand believe that female circumcision is right in england we tend not to think that but but who are we to say that the Somalians are wrong you know their rights for them we're right for us and so on and the last one that you did give me different situation make different moral demands on us so these are all arguments people have given me at different times for being moral relativists let's have a look at each of them okay the first argument it's actually self-defeating it's logically self-defeating it tries to derive moral relativism from a moral absolute so for example all the moral truths should be respected therefore moral relativism is true I you've got a problem here haven't you because if you think of that as always and everywhere true then that's false and if you think of that as true then that's not always and everywhere true is it so one or the other of those has to be false and you've defeated yourself in this argument this is you may have heard of philosopher called Burton Bernard Williams he calls this vulgar relativism and he has a very very short very pissy piece that if you want to read email me and I'll pass it on to you but it's he calls it vulgar relativism you cannot go from the belief that all moral beliefs should be respected or on all moral truths should be respected I should have put beliefs in there that's really irritating in all your handouts would you cross that out and put beliefs rather than truths because I'm angry with myself for putting that there otherwise it's it is the argument known as moral vulgar relativism okay so that's the fast first argument here's the second argument different people differ in their moral believes well yes but this assimilates moral statements the statements of personal preference so it was Sybil who doesn't like sardines strangely and I do you know she has one personal preference I have another but if Sybil said to me well I'd like I don't like kindness I would think hey I think oh she's trying to be clever here or something like that I wouldn't actually believe her or if I did believe her I'd shun her and so would you because actually morality matters to us far more doesn't it than whether people like sardines and so on volker you a name may argue over the painting of a room so you don't want it red and I obviously do it being the most beautiful color but unless we're painting a room together you're quite happy to let me have red as my favorite color I assume thank you the other thing is that if you say well okay I think abortion is wrong you think it's right actually if I think abortion is wrong and you think it's right your belief contradicts mine they cannot both be true one or the other of them must be false so I'm sorry one or the other must be false unless we're going to relativize truth but why should we relativize truth just because we don't want to say that other people are wrong I mean isn't that again going back to to this all moral views should be respected all moral truths sorry beliefs should be respected we'll have a look at that again in a minute well let me give you a good example of that because I was just about to anyway tell me what would happen if you couldn't expect most people to tell the truth most of the time what would happen if you couldn't think okay Erica says chaos why would it be chaos if you couldn't expect most people to tell the truth most of the time why would that be difficult why couldn't you run society sorry you're all shouting at once now it would break down and it would break down because we couldn't trust each other so if I say - what's your name Jane what's on at the cinema tonight and you say the King's Speech and I think Oh jolly good and then I think no hang on do I trust chicken well in the first case if she's told me the truth and I have saved my time and energy haven't I I don't don't now have to look it up on the web myself if I suddenly lose trust in her I've actually wasted my time and energy by asking her haven't I there was no point in asking her because if I can't trust what she says to me and think about this as well lying is parasitic upon truth-telling in order to lie successfully to you I've got to get you to trust me haven't I it's absolutely essential that you believe me if I'm to lie successfully - so if I'm a dishonest person I'm not going to go around lying all the time on the country it's in my interest to tell the truth as much as I possibly can so that you build up a trust in me the difference between someone who's dishonest and someone who's honest is that the dishonest person is constantly waiting for an opportunity we're not telling you something untrue would be of benefit to them and they won't be found out that's the difference I didn't hear that and I'm not going to ask for it to be repeated but I'm sure it but I'm glad you all enjoyed it okay so yeah the difference between a dishonest and honest person not that one tells the truth all the time and the other doesn't I think that answers your question about that's why society so personal preferences don't really matter and that's why we call them personal preferences people are entitled to their own personal preferences but morality really matters without people following rules like don't lie don't kill etc we society would collapse I mean we still haven't said anything about whether they're absolutely true or only rules of thumb at that point but the rules are necessary and also it ignores the possibility of moral error the fact that you know okay Sybil is wrong to not like sardines obviously and you might be wrong to think abortion is right or is wrong or whatever it was okay let's look at the third arguments which different cultures differ in their moral belief this ignores the possibility that different circumstances might generate different beliefs have we got any biologists in the audience no not a one okay never mind I don't think this question is going to be difficult for even none biologists if I have two genetically identical seeds and I put one in John in his number three seed compost or whatever it is and I water it just the right amounts and I put it on my windowsill but I shield it from the direct sunlight and so on and the other one I stick in some garden soil and put in the airing cupboard and water it just enough to keep it alive but I don't do anything else are they going to look very alike after about six weeks they're not going to look alike at all are they does this stop them being genetically identical no of course it doesn't because nature and nurture go together to make up what the plant looks like after six weeks in the same way you might have different circumstances the Inuit I believe there was a time when they believed that their elderly should be gently put to death just allowed to slip under the ice well we don't believe that we keep ours alive as all as possible you might think that we're wrong in this but but anyway perhaps if we lived where they lived when they lived there we would think that they were doing that we should do what they do in other words we can understand what they're doing they're a higher order value perhaps that we can see the Inuits observing that we to observe do you see what I mean but in different circumstances generate very different behaviors so respect the elderly perhaps care for the elderly or whatever might come out in two very different behaviors in very different circumstances and again the possibility of error is a problem if you're going to say that the fact Somalians believe that female circumcision is acceptable and we believe it isn't but their rights and where rights you know relativism holds that means we can't turn around to a culture and say you're wrong because you can't if you can only be wrong within your own culture okay it makes no sense to say of another culture that it's wrong if cultural relativism holds and just there's another the second third arguments might rest on a confusion between p and believing p and i do like to get logical blunders ask away so let me give you a demonstration okay what's your name John the last two times I've asked who's called John and nobody has put their hand up it's sods law that there should be a John sitting in the third row there so okay John believes that Maryann is wearing black is that true okay notice that there's one sentence embedded in another sentence okay Maryann is wearing black is one sentence that's the embedded sentence and John believes that Maryann is wearing black is an embedding sentence okay and going back to look at facts that make it true what's this fact that makes the whole the embedding so since true John believes that Marianne's wearing black no it's his belief it's a fact about John isn't it that makes it true that John believes that Marian's wearing black we don't know what sort of fact it is this is this is difficult stuff but doesn't matter we can just say it's because John believes that Marian's wearing black that that sentence is true what makes the embedded sentence to Mary Anne is wearing black as as people said okay now let me ask you is it possible that that's true and that's false yeah okay John might have a false belief it might actually be dark blue or it might be that the Lighting's weird here or something like that okay could they both be false yeah maybe he does hasn't formed any beliefs he meant to come to this lecture but actually didn't so he hasn't formed any beliefs about what I'm wearing and I'm not wearing black because it's actually dark blue okay so they can both be false could they both be true actually that's probably as the current situation isn't it it's true that john believes Marian's wearing black and it's also true that Mary Ann's wearing black and now I can't remember which the fourth possibility is but which is it that would be false and that would be true okay is that possible of course it is because John might not have come here today he may have decided and says form no beliefs at all about what I'm wearing but it's still true that I am wearing black okay so the important thing to realize is that the truth value of the embedded sentence and the embedding sentence value compared II completely independently of each other now let's have a look at okay if I say if I now look say Mary Anne is wearing black is true for John okay that's ambiguous it could just mean john believes Marian's wearing black or it could be that Marian's wearing black is true for him I mean actually we don't like to think of that because whether I'm wearing black seems to be an objective fact about the world not anything that could be made true by his believing it but so P is morally acceptable for S is ambiguous it could mean s believes piers morally acceptable or P is morally acceptable for s let's have a look at a couple of examples mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable for Fred okay that could mean Fred believes that mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable or it could mean that mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable for Fred now the first of these Fred believes that mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable well that's unremarkable isn't it I mean poor old Fred may have had this sort of upbringing in which he ended up believing that we might want to put him in prison because of it but we're not going to deny that he believes it the fact he's been out doing it every night for the last three weeks shows that he believes it so this is this is not not remarkable at all but mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable for Fred well this is individual relativism okay this is a completely different kettle of fish if we believe this and Fred monks and elderly lady in front of us this means we've got to stand back because even if mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable for unacceptable rather for us for Fred it's morally acceptable so just as I won't engage Sybil in arguments about whether sardines are tasty because I'm quite happy to say that they're tasty for me but not tasty for you if mugging elderly ladies is okay for you but not for me and I accept that then if you go and mug and elderly lady I'm supposed to stand back and say I wouldn't do it but for him it's fine that's what I meant about it doesn't take account of moral error if you're an individual relativist you believe the truth of mugging elderly ladies is okay the truth of mugging elderly ladies is okay is relative to individuals so it might be true for you for me and false for you and that's how it is not not just you believe it's okay it is okay very different kettle of fish now I think I had another example now I didn't the other example I was going to use was a cultural one it was the Aztecs believed fought for the Aztecs killing children is morally acceptable okay does this mean that the Aztecs believe that killing children is morally acceptable or does it mean that killing children is morally acceptable for the Aztecs surely it only means the first it doesn't mean the second it doesn't mean that they were okay to kill children when they did it it just meant that they believed which is nothing very interesting well I'm sorry it isn't if it is interesting if especially if you're archeologists and so on and anthropologists so what I'm asking should we believe that mocking elderly ladies is morally acceptable for Fred simply because we believe that Fred believes that mugging elderly ladies is morally acceptable blindingly obviously we shouldn't instead we should say fred is wrong we can then make against stoning adulterers we can certainly say that so stone II adulterers is wrong you mean yes absolutely we don't say stoning adulterers you know what you believe stoning adulterers is okay we don't believe stony adulterers is okay but morality is culturally relative so that's okay you real mate cultures believe that it's acceptable to stone adulteress but I guess most of us here wouldn't and I've always found it difficult to make that argument but this is the argument you now can make against that well perhaps I'll come back to what you're saying later on we're actually running out of time let me move on but I but I think I will address that just want to move on we've looked at the first three arguments for moral relativism now let's look at the fourth do you remember that was different situations make different demands the fourth argument assumes that the only form of moral absolutism on offer is what I'm going to call lower order absolutism and here the only form and candidates for moral absolutes are everyday whoops everyday moral rules like don't lie tell the truth etc actually there are three types of absolutism so-called law lower order absolutism higher order and token absolutism let's have a look at them okay that I think that's fairly straightforward okay here's higher order absolutism oops yes okay if you're a particular issue deny lower order moral absolutism you don't think that things like don't like eat promises are everywhere and always true you think they're rules of thumb okay higher order absolutism is the belief that moral absolutes are rules like this produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number that's the utilitarian rule or treat others as ends in themselves that's the downto logical moral rule we'll be looking at both of these later on but can you see these are completely different sorts of moral rules and whereas don't lie keep promises are very good school rules aren't they these are lousy school rules I mean you wouldn't have those up in the hall saying everyone's got to obey those because you'd have everyone going hey as somebody that said earlier in connection to virtue theory well what is a virtuous person you might ask well because there's not many 11-year olds who would know what it would be to be an end in themselves yes but you don't want to set rules that are only going to be obeyed or understood by the sixth formers anyway the the higher order absolutism is the belief that these are moral absolutes and token absolutism is the belief that moral absolutes are imperatives about token actions okay type token distinction if I wrote wrote on the board let me do it where's my pen the name of a well-known pop group well known to anyone of our age anyway I apologize to anyone who's younger okay how many letters have I written down here you could answer four or you could answer to and if you answer for you're looking at token letters and if you answer to you're looking at type letters okay I pinch static I pinched that example from Peter Milliken by the way another famous philosopher Oxford University okay you can do it like this too I'm a token human being okay there's a type of thing a human being I'm a token you're a token you're a token you're a token okay there are lots of chairs in this room that are all of a type but that's a token one of those chairs okay so you can be a token absolutist it would be wrong to tell that lie you might think or you must keep that promise so you're not an absolutist about all lies but when it comes to a particular lie you are so let's let's move on higher order absolutism and token absolute go together if it's absolutely true that we ought to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number or treat others as ends then it's going to be absolutely true in any given situation that we should perform whichever action produces the greatest happiness the rest number or treats others as ends so the Nazis are at the door where are the Jews they say you could tell them where the Jews are but you think actually my aim my job is to produce the greatest happiness the greatest number in this situation it will only produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number if I say there aren't any Jews here so telling that lie there aren't any Jews here at this occasion in this context in this situation is the right thing to do do you see what I mean higher order absolutism and token absolutism go together even if don't lie is nothing more than a rule of thumb and higher order absolutism and token absolutism together may explain firstly why lower order rules are not absolutely true and also why lower order rules are important here's the first one low order rules are not absolutely true because if telling a lie in a given situation wouldn't promote the greatest happiness the greatest number or respect others as ends then we ought not to tell it but if it would promote the greatest happiness greatest number or respect others as ends then we ought to tell it so why is don't lie nothing more than a rule of thumb okay why is it sometimes true and sometimes not true answer because the thing that's always and everywhere true is we should produce the race happiness the greatest number and some time or mostly lying doesn't SPRO deuce the great sadness the greatest number but in this situation it does therefore we should tell this lie so so higher-order absolutism plus token absolutism explain why lower order absolutism is false and lower order rules are important because if we see many situations in which token lies are absolutely wrong okay so mostly lying is wrong isn't it and only a few where they're absolutely right then don't lie becomes a useful rule of thumb doesn't it um where we go wrong is in thinking that it's absolutely true not in thinking that it's generally true usually true that that is true sorry and another reason we might think of low order rules as important is that when we were children we were all taught lower order moral rules as if they were absolutes tell me why it makes life easy doesn't it and it's we don't say darling you know what you've got to do is produce the grace happiness the grace number what is it darling don't tell lies and of course when your child catches you lying the first time says mummy you just lied at that point you sort of backpedal don't you it's quite quickly and and you explained to the child's that lower order moral rules are - dah dah dah so our discovery that the rules we were taught as absolutes aren't absolutes causes us to think that a standard view the knee-jerk view the view of authority if you like is that the lower moral rules are absolutes rather than just that that's what we were taught when we were children for the obvious and very good reasons so not only might we be absolutists while accepting that no order moral rules are not absolutely true we also might think that absolutism explains why lower order moral rules are not absolutely true at this point we've got five minutes left and I'm quite tempted to just finish there and have five minutes for question what I was going to go on to do is distinguish two different types of absolutism from different types of relativism and then I was going to give what I think is a psychological process by which people come to believe that their relativists but I can do that or I can have a question or answer session who would like the question-and-answer session do put your hands up don't be or just signaled to me like that if you don't want to put your hands okay who would like me to go on oh right I'll go on then even though I can hardly speak anymore right it would bring the greatest happiness of the greatest number okay it's important to distinguish token absolutism from both individual relativism and situation relativism okay what I mean by that let's have a look and instantly I just want to say if your mind is busing now for a start it's not busing any more than mine is and secondly that's entirely to be expected I can't teach you these things all I can do is put them in front of you you've now got to go home and do the thinking for yourself okay you've got to go back have a look at your notes think about what I've said and see why what I've said makes sense you might disagree with what I've said and that's absolutely fine but but you need to go and do the thinking for yourself before you're in a position to see whether you agree with me or not but let's have let's distinguish these things okay mugging Mabel Smith at 5:30 on Tuesday the 6th of December 9 2009 was wrong that's a token moral statement it's a moral statement about a token action see what I mean token absolutism says if this statement is true it's true absolutely ok anyone who thinks it's false is wrong ok so he if you believe that you believe it as an absolutist okay a situation a sorry an individual relativist believes that even if this statement is true it's only true in relation to individuals so there might be people Fred for example for whom it's false and this doesn't just mean that there are people who believe it's false but that there are people for whom it is false perhaps the person knew Mundt Mabel Smith de da da da maybe we should let him off because if we accept the individual relativism then it wasn't wrong for him to do it and what right have we got to punish him for something that wasn't wrong so that's token absolutism that's individual relativism don't confuse the two because if you do you might think that you're an individual relativist whereas what you actually are as a token absolutist and of course it is very important as you know to get these things right I don't know why you're laughing it's huge okay distinguishing token absolutism from situation relativism token absolutism claims that lower order moral rules are only rules of thumb okay so lying is wrong perfectly good rule it's one that I use myself all the time if I see an action I see it as a lie I I am inclined to think it's wrong because I think that most lies are wrong so as a token absolutist if I am I'm not telling you that I'm just putting it to you there are only rules of thumb so even if most lies are on there can be token lies perhaps that the Jews are not here that are right situation relativism claims that lower order moral rules are truly in relation to situations so in situation s lying is wrong whereas in situation s star lying isn't wrong it's actually difficult to know what that means does that mean you can tell any lie you like in situation s here's a situation that characterized by the fact that lying in this situation isn't wrong it isn't that lying to say that the Nazis that sorry the Jews aren't here isn't wrong it's to say lying isn't wrong in this situation something odd there isn't that again I'll leave you two to think about that here's the process now you're getting very jerky about your parking meter aren't you are try and move quickly okay I think that our knee-jerk moral relativism is a combination of several of the errors that we've examined and often the result of the following process this is the process and I'm going to go through it so I'm not going to give you time to read that but I am going to go discuss each of those briefly right abortion is wrong it's controversial isn't it I mean we all accept that this is some people believe this some people don't believe this and so on best explanation I believe of this is that abortion is wrong as a rule of thumb okay it's generated by beliefs about whether abortion promotes the greatest happiness greatest number or treats others as ends and so on and so on but but the fact is it is controversial some people believe it some people don't you might think well actually nobody needs to believe it as an absolute perhaps we can all believe it as a as a rule of thumb anyway respect for each other leads to reluctance to disagree oh dear Sybil thinks that abortion is wrong and I think it's right and but dear old Sybil she's a nice old bat sorry that's what I used to call my mum it was meant very affectionately well hang on a second what we've got here what seems to be vulgar relativism because actually I don't think that disagreeing that somebody is a sign of respect if you say PN I believe not P actually I show my respect for you by saying oh that's interesting you believe P I believe not P maybe I'm wrong why do you believe P tell me your reasons and I'll tell you for believing not Pia maybe we'll both discover that we're wrong or maybe we'll discover that you are right and I am wrong on or maybe so how can it possibly be disrespectful to disagree with someone it may be disrespectful we may agree with them in a way that disrespects them but it doesn't disrespect somebody just to disagree with them does it so I that's the second move in the process third one is that okay having done this having said well I respects it with Sybil therefore I'm not going to argue with her abortion must be right for you and wrong for me or the other way around I can't remember what I said before but it doesn't matter so here can you see that the logical blunder threatens now I I'm thinking that well okay Sybil believes that abortion is wrong I believe that abortion is right but that's merely a statement about what we believe not about the truth of our beliefs so why do we go the extra step and and in doing so become individual relativists third move we accept lower order relativism okay abortion is wrong is true only relative to individuals did I okay so so we go from the unremarkable belief that I believe abortion is wrong you believe abortion is right to the relativistic belief abortion is wrong for you and abortion is right for me and actually if you think about it both of these are hugely controversial because even if I accept that abortion is right for me I would certainly think that there are times when it wasn't right if I if I choose to have an abortion at eight and a half months because I want to go on holiday you know it's abortion right for me then well surely not it seems is wrong for me then and as I would think it is for Sybil might think it is for other people and we might then go from lower order moral relativism to the belief that all moral truth is relative either because we're ignorant of all because we're ignoring the possibility of higher order or token relativism so do you see what I've done is I've taken this from a through a a psychological process by several quite easy and easily explained steps by how we get to beliefs in relativism that are actually not justified at all now this is not to say and I think I've finished that okay we'll come back to that in a minute this is not to say that moral relativism can't be a much more sophisticated position that has a fighting chance of being right I mean I don't think it's right but then that's me and but there are other good philosophers who think that moral relativism is true but not in these crude forms okay what I want you to do if you can if you've got time if we haven't it just matter go home look at your handout work through what I've said and see if you can see where the errors come in that'll do you that's all you need to do okay I just like to take a straw poll here because half the room right should well over half the room so that they're relativists who now thinks they're a relativist Oh God still quite a lot of people ok I think I might offset a question again at the beginning of next week there's the reading for next week so this is for this week's lecture okay yeah it's yes it is yep yep and if you'd like to test your understanding ask yourself whether you can do those questions okay and if you'd like to do some reading for next week there's a lecture of some reading for next week that's it and thank you for listening I'm sorry [Applause]

Channel: University of Oxford

Views: 78,868

Rating: 4.9213114 out of 5

Keywords: Marianne Talbot, ethics, philosophy Beginner's Guide, Oxford, moral dilemmas, moral truth, moral knowledge, freewill

Id: efVM0jaJ7Dk

Length: 93min 25sec (5605 seconds)

Published: Wed Feb 15 2012