This Morals and Society course is all about ethics

What is ethics?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy

What is philosophy?

Not an easy question to answer

Philosophy has always had a serious public relations problem...

“Philosophy begins in wonder...” (Socrates)

What sorts of things do philosophers typically wonder about? And how do they typically carry out their wondering about those things?

Philosophy is the discipline that wonders about the really BIG issues/questions by means of constructing and evaluating arguments

What’s a really BIG issue/question exactly?

How about those issues/questions that lie at the bottom of everything else... the most fundamental issues/questions that one can consider

An example to help illustrate the point – Science vs. Philosophy

Scientists typically wonder about how to best explain a particular observation they have made...

But philosophers wonder about the nature of explanation itself and about the connection between perceived observation and reality...

The really BIG issues/questions of philosophy have traditionally been grouped into various branches of philosophical inquiry

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that considers the nature of reality

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that considers the nature of knowledge

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that considers the nature of morality

Logic is the branch of philosophy that considers the nature of correct reasoning

What is philosophy good for?

Is philosophy just a bunch of useless bullsh#@t?

Bertrand Russell – The Value of Philosophy

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

Bertrand Russell – The Value of Philosophy

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

What will we be doing in this particular philosophy course?

In this course we’re going to carefully consider the BIG issues/questions of morality by means of constructing and evaluating arguments

What are some of the BIG issues/questions of ethics?

Are there any universal moral absolutes or is the truth of moral claims a relative matter?

How should we decide which actions are moral and which are immoral? Which theory of moral action should be adopted?

Under what conditions, if any, is it morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion?

Is it ever morally permissible to assist another individual in euthanizing (i.e. killing) themselves?

When, if ever, is it morally permissible for the government to limit or prohibit the exposure of consenting adults to pornographic material?

Do animals have rights? Is it morally permissible to experiment on animals, raise them for food and cause them unnecessary pain and suffering?

Do we have an ethical obligation to help eradicate extreme poverty and world hunger?

Cool stuff right?

ETHICS AND THE EXAMINED LIFE

The scope and importance of ethics

There’s really no escaping ethics... Everyone does ethics whether they know it or not

The only question is whether you’ll take the easy (lame) way out and not think carefully and critically about ethical issues/questions

Doing ethics will not always provide you with a clear cut answer to moral truth, but it will teach you how to ask the right critical questions about morality that will help lead you to well grounded answers

Three important sub-domains of moral philosophy

Meta ethics

Normative ethics

Applied ethics

!"#$%#&'()*&(+"#&',-.,$"($/(0*&1&($21(3$1.%4&)*+5.%(61+"5+6%&'(5$3&(/1$3(."7(0*.)(3$1.%(5%.+3'(.1&('266$'&7()$(3&."8(

9:&36)'()$(7+'5$#&1;(7&#&%$6(."7(7&/&"7()*&(61+"5+6%&'(."7(')."7.17'(/$1(7&)&13+"+"-(1+-*)(."7(01$"-(5$"725)8

9".%<=&'('6&5+>5;(5$")1$#&1'+.%(3$1.%(+''2&'('25*(.'(.?$1,$";(&2)*.".'+.;(5&"'$1'*+6;(."+3.%(1+-*)';(&)58

A few basic elements necessary for worthwhile ethical inquiry

A),/6$#!",4-$1#=(,1#-$!"#$&++',4&7)/$)*$41,74&'$1#&-)/,/6

!/(.(3$1.%(@27-&3&")(+'()$(?&(0$1)*<($/(.55&6)."5&;(+)(32')(?&('266$1)&7(?<(-$$7(1&.'$"'(

B!",4&'$1#&-)/,/6$0(-!$*)'')8$!"#$+1,/4,+'#$)*$(/,%#1-&',>&5,',!.

A$1.%(61+"5+6%&';(12%&'($1(@27-&3&")'()*.)(.66%<(+"($"&('+)2.,$"(32')(.66%<(+"(.%%(1&%&#.")%<('+3+%.1('+)2.,$"'

B!",4&'$1#&-)/,/6$0(-!$*)'')8$!"#$+1,/4,+'#$)*$,0+&17&',!.

B"%&''()*&1&(.1&(@2',>.?%&(1&.'$"'(/$1()1&.,"-('$3&$"&(7+C&1&")%<;(3$1.%%<('6&.D+"-;(.%%(6&1'$"'(.1&(5$"'+7&1&7(&E2.%(."7('*$2%7(?&()1&.)&7(.55$17+"-%<

The relationship between religion and morality

Do religious people still need to spend time doing ethics? Doesn’t one’s religious code answer all of the important moral questions?

Many people believe that morality and religion are inseparable... that religion is the source or basis of morality and that moral precepts are simply what God says should be done

Divine Command theory@)&$9%&'(&7-:$<<,&?1:7'(('0<1&-:&'7?1:7'(('0<1&!"#$%&"&G-*&($,(&H'414&9-77$)*(I&%#$%&'%&'(&?1:7'(('0<1&-:&'7?1:7'(('0<1

A potential problem for people who think that God is the source/maker of morality

Does God command that we perform moral actions because those actions are moral in and of themselves? Or is some action moral simply because God commands that we do that action?

The Euthyphro dilemma for Divine Command theory

FGH B,!"#1(3$1.%+)<(2#+#/2-($"(I$7J'(5$33."7'($1(+)(2)#-/C!

FKH !/(3$1.%+)<(2#+#/2-($"(I$7J'(5$33."7';()*&"(8"&!$0&@#-$&/$&4!$0)1&'$,-$!"#$!"#$%"!"&$8,''$)*$D)2(

FLH !/(3$1.%+)<(7$&'(/)!$2#+#/2($"(I$7J'(5$33."7';()*&"(8"&!$0&@#-$&/$&4!$0)1&'$,-$-)0#!",/6$$'()*)'()'%$)*$D)2C-$8,''$

FMH N*&1&/$1&;(0*.)(3.D&'(."(.5)(3$1.%(+'(#,!"#1()*&(!"#$%"!"&(0+%%($/(I$7()1('$3&)*+"-($'()*)'()'%($/(I$7J'(0+%%(

The Euthyphro dilemma for Divine Command theory

E*$&/$&47)/$,-$1,6"!$)/'.$5#4&(-#$D)2$8,''-$F,G#G$4)00&/2-H$,!$!)$5#$-)<$!"#/$&/.$&47)/$8"&!-)#%#1$I8)('2$5#J$1,6"!$,*$D)2$8,''#2$,!$!)$5#$-)G(O$1(+"')."5&;(+/(I$7(*.7('.+7()*.)(1.6+"-;()$1)21+"-(."7(3217&1+"-(+""$5&")(5*+%71&"(0.'(3$1.%%<(6&13+''+?%&;()*&"(+)(0$2%7(?&(3$1.%%<(61.+'&0$1)*<()$(7$('$8(P2)()*.)(5."J)(?&(1+-*);(5."(+)Q

!*$D)2$8,''-$&/$&47)/$5#4&(-#$,!$,-$0)1&''.$1,6"!$F,G#G$,*$0)1&'$/)10-$&1#$,/2#+#/2#/!$)*$D)2H<$!"#/$!"#$A,%,/#$K)00&/2$:"#)1.$0(-!$5#$*&'-#G$I$7(7$&'("$)(51&.)&(3$1.%(1+-*)"&''R(*&('+36%<(D"$0'(0*.)(+'(1+-*)(."7(01$"-(

Leibniz’ worry about Divine Command theory

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

Rachels’ worry about Divine Command theory

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

What do you think?

SUBJECTIVISM, RELATIVISM AND EMOTIVISM

Are moral claims truth evaluable?

An interesting Meta-Ethical issue – Emotivism

N1#$!"#1#$)53#47%#$0)1&'$*&4!-L[$"'+7&1;(/$1(&\.36%&;()*&(/$%%$0+"-()*1&&('&")&"5&']

J4@0-:8-)&'(&+:-)/

K4 6#1&*1(C&'(&(D.$:1

L4M.<<1%(&$:1&%#1&01(%&#$':*-&1=1:

!'('&")&"5&(G(3$1&(%+D&('&")&"5&(K($1('&")&"5&(LQ(T*.)(7$(<$2()*+"DQ

T*&"(0&(.''&1)()*.)(S.?$1,$"(+'(01$"-U(&1#$8#$0#1#'.$#O+1#--,/6$)(1$)8/$+,#-)./0)$1))2$'3+()*$2,-&++1)%&'$)1$&$*&4!L(

An interesting Meta-Ethical issue – Emotivism

N44)12,/6$!)$#0)7%,-!-<$0)1&'$(P#1&/4#-$&1#$/#,!"#1$!1(#$/)1$*&'-#$5(!$&1#$,/-!#&2$0#1#'.$#O+1#--,)/-$)*$#0)7)/-$)1$&Q!(2#-

N*&(5$33$"'&"'&(#+&0($/(3$1.%(@27-&3&")'(+'()*.)()*&<(.'51+?&(3$1.%(61$6&1,&'()$('25*()*+"-'(.'(.5,$"'(."7(6&$6%&(."7()*.)()*&<(.1&()*&1&/$1&(').)&3&")'()*.)(5."(?&()12&($1(/.%'&

^$0&#&1;(/$1()*&(&3$,#+');(0)1&'((P#1&/4#-(.1&(%+D&(#O4'&0&7)/-()*.)(#O+1#--(&++1)%,/6($1(2,-&++1)%,/6(*##',/6-;(?2)("$)*+"-(3$1&8(

“Treating others as you would like to be treated– awesome!”

“Raping, torturing and murdering innocent children– disgusting!”

A few worries to consider...

If emotivism is correct, there are no properties of moral goodness and badness. There are only favorable or unfavorable attitudes

If emotivism is correct, there can be no real disagreement about moral issues since there is no objective fact of the matter

Are there really no objective moral facts that are true?

“It is never morally permissible to rape, torture and murder an innocent child...”

Is this claim a fact or opinion?

Are the truth of moral claims relative or absolute?

An interesting Meta-Ethical issue – Relativism

N--(0,/6$!"#1#$&1#$0)1&'$!1(!"-<$8"&!$0&@#-$!"#0$!1(#L

B!",4&'$1#'&7%,-0(+'()*&(#+&0()*.)(8"&!(+'(1,6"!(."7(81)/6(5."($"%<(?&(2#!#10,/#2($1(@2',>&7(1#'&7%#()$()*&(-!&/2&12-($/(.(-+#&"(+"7+#+72.%;(-1$26($1(52%)21&

R(53#47%#(1&%.,#+'3('.<'()*.)(0*.)(3.D&'(."<(.5,$"(3$1.%%<(1+-*)(+'(+/($"&(.661$#&'($/()*.)(.5,$"

K('!(1&'(1&%.,#+'3('.<'()*.)(0*.)(3.D&'(."<(.5,$"(3$1.%%<(1+-*)(+'(+/($"&J'(52%)21&(.661$#&'($/()*.)(.5,$"

Cultural ethical relativism@)&$9%&'(&+#10,--,5'#&-:&,0+#10,--,5'#&#).!,+)&%#1&$/1)%N(&4('!(1#&H-:&(-9'1%,I&($,(&'%&'(&?1:7'(('0<1&-:&'7?1:7'(('0<1

Relativism and the cultural differences argument...

:"#$6#/#1&'$*)10$)*$!"#$&16(0#/!$(-#2$!)$-(++)1!$4('!(1&'$1#'&7%,-0FGH _&$6%&J'(@27-&3&")'(.?$2)(1+-*)(."7(

01$"-(7+C&1(/1$3(52%)21&()$(52%)21&

FKH !/(6&$6%&J'(@27-&3&")'(.?$2)(1+-*)(."7(01$"-(7+C&1(/1$3(52%)21&()$(52%)21&;()*&"(1+-*)(."7(01$"-(.1&(1&%.,#&()$(52%)21&(."7()*&1&("$($?@&5,#&(3$1.%(61+"5+6%&'

N*&1&/$1&;

FLH `+-*)(."7(01$"-(.1&(1&%.,#&()$(52%)21&(."7()*&1&(("$($?@&5,#&(3$1.%(61+"5+6%&'

A few worries to consider...

Relativism and the subjectivist fallacy

S#'&7%,-!-$4)/*(-#$5#',#*-$&/2$$+#14#+7)/-$8,!"$!1(!"FGH P&%+&/'(#.1<(/1$3($"&(6&1'$"(F$1(

52%)21&H()$(."$)*&1

N*&1&/$1&;(

FKH N12)*(#.1+&'(/1$3($"&(6&1'$"(F$1(52%)21&H()$(."$)*&1

P2)()*&(4)/4'(-,)/(2)#-/C!(1&.%%<(*)'')8(/1$3()*&(61&3+'&'8(!"(/.5)()*&($"%<(0.<()*&(.1-23&")(0$2%7(0$1D(+'(+/(."(.77+,$".%(61&3+'&(0&1&(.77&7()*.)(5%.+3&7()*.)(S?&%+&/(a()12)*U8(P2)()*.)(5."J)(?&(1+-*)bQb

“All perspectives are equally valid”or “This is true for me, and that is true for you...”

Socrates thought that relativism was absurd and argued against it strongly

Socrates: So I’ve heard, Protagoras held that man was the measure of all things: of those that are, that they are; of those that are not, that they are not… and isn’t this roughly what he means: “Particular things are to me just as they appear to me, and are to you just as they appear to you”?

Theaetetus: Yes, that’s what he means.

A Socratic argument against relativism

FGH 955$17+"-()$(SBTN:EUERV;(+/('$3&$"&(?&%+&#&'()*.)(Z(+'()12&;()*&"(Z(+'()12&(

FKH ?1)!&6)1&-(?&%+&#&'(SBTN:EUERV(+'(!1(#

FLH R)41&!#-(?&%+&#&'(SBTN:EUERV(+'(*&'-#

FMH c$(SBTN:EUERV(+'(-,0('!&/#)(-'.(?$)*(!1(#(/$1(_1$).-$1.'(."7(*&'-#(/$1(c$51.)&'

FdH P2)(FMH(+'(.(4)/!1&2,47)/b(!)J'(,0+)--,5'#(/$1($"&(."7()*&(-&0#(!",/6()$(?&(?$)*(!1(#(."7(*&'-#('+32%)."&$2'%<

FeH N*&1&/$1&;(SBTN:EUERV(+'(."(,/4)11#4!()*&$1<('+"5&(+)(%&.7'()$(&5-(12(4)/-#=(#/4#-

Ironically, rather than promoting tolerance, relativists cannot consistently advocate tolerance since that would require advocating an objective moral value

Disturbing consequences related to Relativism

E*$1#'&7%,-0$,-$!1(#<$!"#/$-)$&1#$!"#$*)'')8,/6$4)/-#=(#/4#-GGG

K('!(1#-(F$1(+"7+#+72.%'H(.1&(0)1&''.(,/*&'',5'#

9%%(0)1&'(1#*)10#1-(.1&(81)/6

A$1.%(2,-&61##0#/!-(?&)0&&"(+"7+#+72.%'(+"()*&('.3&(52%)21&(.3$2")()$(.1-23&")'($#&1(0*&)*&1()*&<(7+'.-1&&(0+)*()*&+1(52%)21&J'(.55&6)."5&($/('$3&)*+"-;(1.)*&1()*."($#&1()*&(3$1.%+)<($/()*&(+''2&(+)'&%/

A$1.%(41,74,-0(?&)0&&"(4('!(1#-(?&5$3&'(,0+)--,5'#;(0*+5*()*1&.)&"'(3$1.%(61$-1&''

But the real problem with relativism is that if relativism is true, the following argument MUST be accepted by relativists

A powerful argument against cultural relativism

FGH 955$17+"-()$(52%)21.%(1#'&7%,-!-;(0*.)&#&1(-)4,#!.(&++1)%#-($/(+'(0)1&';(."7(0*.)&#&1('$5+&)<(2,-&++1)%#-($/(+'(,00)1&'

FKH !"(W&>,(D#10&/.;('$5+&)<(&++1)%#2($/('&"7+"-(X#8-()$(5$"5&")1.,$"(5.36'(."7(#O!#10,/&7/6()*&3(+"(*$11+>5(0.<'

N*&1&/$1&;

FLH 955$17+"-()$(52%)21.%(1&%.,#+')';(W&>,(D#10&/.(&4!#2(0)1&''.(+"('&"7+"-(f&0'()$(5$"5&")1.,$"(5.36'(."7(&\)&13+".,"-()*&3(+"(*$11+>5(0.<'

EVALUATING MORAL ARGUMENTS

Logic is primarily concerned with the nature and evaluation of arguments

What’s an argument?

An argument is a group of statements, some of which (called the premises) are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement (called the conclusion)

A group of statements

Composed of premises and a conclusion

The premises are supposed to support the conclusion

Making sense of the definition of a philosophical argument...

A few basic concepts pertaining to philosophical arguments...

R!&!#0#/!-$&/2$/)/9-!&!#0#/!-9(&'$'"(")'(+'(.('&")&"5&45%.+34&\61&''+$"()*.)(+'(S)12)*(&#.%2.?%&U(F+8&8(5.6.?%&($/(?&+"-(&+)*&1('*%"($1(+$,&"H

g+C&1&")(D+"7'($/('&")&"5&'45%.+3'4&\61&''+$"']

6#1&9$%&'(&1$8)/&%#1&:$%4&H(%$%171)%I@:1&9$%(&1='<2&HD.1(8-)IB-'(-)&%#$%&9$%&)-+4&H9-77$)*IO'1&9$%P&H1Q9<$7$8-)IR1%N(&1$%&%#1&9$%4&H(.//1(8-)IS$T,&9$T,&:$%&?$T,4&H)-)(1)(1I

A few basic concepts pertaining to philosophical arguments...

?1#0,-#-$&/2$K)/4'(-,)/-N*&(').)&3&")'()*.)(."(.1-23&")(+'(5$361+'&7($/(5."(?&(7+#+7&7(+")$()0$(5.)&-$1+&'(+"(#+1)2&($/('-".*/,".'-$'.'-"0.1,$0.23'-3).'-".$*4%(")'

N*&(1*"(3&"&($/(."(.1-23&")(.1&()*$'&(').)&3&")'()*.)(61$#+7&()*&(1&.'$"';('266$1);(@2',>5.,$"($1(&#+7&"5&(/$1(?&%+&#+"-()*&(#/)#,%&3/)(F$1(3.+"(5%.+3H($/()*&(.1-23&")()$(?&()12&

J4 @<<&9$%(&#$=1&;-.:&<1/(&H?:17'(1IK4 U&#$=1&;-.:&<1/(&H?:17'(1IL4 6#1:1;-:1>&U&$7&$&9$%&H9-)9<.('-)I

The purpose (or goal) of a philosophical argument is to convince someone of true beliefs in the right kind of way

Differentiating good and bad philosophical arguments...

T*&)*&1(."(.1-23&")(+'(5$"#+"5+"-($1("$)(7&6&"7'(0*$%%<($"(0*&)*&1(0&(?&%+&#&(+)'(61&3+'&';(."7(0*&)*&1(+)'(5$"5%2'+$"('&&3'()$(/$%%$0(F%$-+5.%%<H(/1$3()*$'&(61&3+'&'

N*&1&(.1&()0$(E2&',$"'()*.)("&&7()$(?&(.'D&7(0*&"(+)(5$3&'()$()*&(&#.%2.,$"($/(.1-23&")']

HJI O-1(&%#1&9-)9<.('-)&-;&%#1&$:/.71)%&:1$<<,&;-<<-+&;:-7&%#1&?:17'(1(&-;&%#1&$:/.71)%2

HKI @:1&%#1&?:17'(1(&-;&%#1&$:/.71)%&%:.1&H-:&$%&<1$(%&?<$.('0<1I2

Moral statements and moral arguments

A moral statement is a statement affirming that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one’s motives or character) is good or bad

A few basic concepts pertaining to moral arguments...

N$*#8$#O&0+'#-$)*$0)1&'$-!&!#0#/!-

[.6+)$%(62"+'*3&")(+'(81)/6

f&"".(-")('2$/)!(*.#&(%+&7

h$2()(6"!()$()1&.)(*+3(.'(*&()1&.)&7(<$2

N."+.(+'(.(6))2(6&1'$"

[12&%)<()$(."+3.%'(+'(,00)1&'

V&W-891&%#1&.(1&-;&%#1&%1:7(&81)/6>&-")('2>&)(6"!>&6))2&$)*&,00)1&'4&6#1(1&$:1&9-77-)&%1:7(&-;&7-:$<&*'(9-.:(1

The best method for evaluating moral premises is to construct a possible counterexample

A few basic concepts pertaining to moral arguments...

K)(/!#1#O&0+'#-(.1&(#O4#+7)/-()$('$i5.%%&7(I(/,%#1-&'J(61+"5+6%&'8

T*&"(."(.1-23&")(3.D&'(.(2"+#&1'.%(5%.+3(%+D&(S9%%(ZJ'(.1&(hJ'U;(6$+","-($2)(.(5$2")&1&\.36%&(@2')(+"#$%#&'(6$+","-($2)(."(&\.36%&($/(."(Z()*.)(+'("$)(.(h8(

jZ9A_kj](S!)(+'(.%0.<'(01$"-()$(%+&U

[VBlNj`jZ9A_kj](N*&($6&"+"-('5&"&(/1$3(!"-%$1+$2'(P.').17'

K"#4@,/6$&$0)1&'$+1#0,-#$&6&,/-!$+)--,5'#$4)(/!#1#O&0+'#-$,-$&$8&.$!)$4)/-('!$)(1$4)/-,2#1#2$0)1&'$3(26#0#/!-(

INTRODUCTION TO MORAL THEORIES

What is a moral theory?

A moral theory is an explanation of what makes an action right or wrong. It provides general standards that can help us make sense of our moral experiences, judgements and principles

A few basic notions pertaining to moral theories...

N*&(')."7.17'($/(.(0)1&'(!"#)1.('*$2%7(?&(6#/#1&'(&"$2-*(."7(-(5-!&/7&'(&"$2-*()$(,/*)10($21(0)1&'(1#&-)/,/68(!)('*$2%7]

X1<?&.(&$((1((&%#1&+-:%#&-;&<1((&/1)1:$<&7-:$<&?:')9'?<1(Y#1*&<'/#%&-)&-.:&7-:$<&Z.*/171)%(S-::-0-:$%1&-:&9#$<<1)/1&$(?19%(&-;&-.:&7-:$<&1Q?1:'1)91@(('(%&.(&')&/1)1:$8)/&)1+&<-+1:[<1=1<&7-:$<&?:')9'?<1(&';&)11*&01

9(SANU('*$2%7(,2#/7*.(0*.)(+'()*$2-*)()$(?&()*&(0)-!(,0+)1!&/!(/.5)$1(+"()*&(0)1&'(',*#(."7(61$#+7&(.(+1)4#2(1#(/$1(3.D+"-(3(26#0#/!-(.?$2)(1,6"!(."7(81)/6(.5,$"((

What’s the difference between a moral theory and a moral code?

A moral theory explains what makes an action right or wrong. A moral code is simply stipulates a set of moral rules

Is a moral theory the final authority on moral reasoning?

A few basic notions pertaining to moral theories...

B"%+D&(.(3.)*&3.,5.%(.\+$3;(.(3$1.%()*&$1<(0+%%("$)(.%%$0(2'()$(7&725&47&1+#&(+"(')1+5)(%$-+5.%(/.'*+$"()*&(3$1.%(61+"5+6%&'($1(@27-&3&")'("&&7&7()$('$%#&(.%%($/(1&.%i0$1%7(3$1.%(61$?%&3'()*.)(0&(&"5$2")&1(

[.1&/2%%<(4)/-,2#1#2$0)1&'$3(26#0#/!-(.?$2)('6&5+>5(5.'&'(."7(+''2&'(.%'$('*$2%7(?&().D&"(#&1<('&1+$2'%<(0*&"(+)(5$3&'()$($21(3$1.%(1&.'$"+"-

N*&(+7&.%(1&%.,$"'*+6(?&)0&&"(.(3$1.%()*&$1<(."7($21(3$1.%(@27-&3&")'('*$2%7(?&($"&($/(1#Y#47%#$#=(,',51,(08(!"($)*&1(0$17';()*&1&('*$2%7(?&(.'(325*(5$*&1&"5&(?&)0&&"()*&()0$(.(6$''+?%&

What’s the best way to evaluate the adequacy of a moral theory?

A suggested criteria for evaluating the moral adequacy of a theory

K)/-,-!#/4.$8,!"$4)/-,2#1#2$0)1&'$$3(26#0#/!-

9(3$1.%()*&$1<()*.)(+'(+"5$"'+')&")(0+)*()12')0$1)*<(@27-&3&")'(+'(.)(%&.')('2'6&5)(

K)/-,-!#/4.$8,!"$0)1&'$#O+#1,#/4#9(6%.2'+?%&(3$1.%()*&$1<('*$2%7(?&(5$"'+')&")(0+)*()*&(/2"7.3&").%(/.5)'($/($21(3$1.%(&\6&1+&"5&

Z-#*('/#--$,/$0)1&'$+1)5'#0$-)'%,/69(-$$7(3$1.%()*&$1<('*$2%7(*&%6(2'('$%#&(1&.%i%+/&(3$1.%(+''2&'(."7(7+%&33.'

What is the best moral theory (or criteria) for determining right

and wrong conduct?

Introduction to three of the most influential moral theories put forward

Virtue ethics (focus on agents)

Kantian ethics (focus on acts)

Utilitarian ethics (focus on consequences)

N*&(3$1.%%<(.661$61+.)&(.5,$"()$(6&1/$13(+'()*&($"&()*.)(0$2%7(?&(6&1/$13&7(?<(.()12%<(#+1)2$2'(.-&")(

N*&(3$1.%%<(.661$61+.)&(.5,$"()$(6&1/$13(+'()*&($"&()*.)(+'(+"(.55$17."5&(0+)*()*&($21(3$1.%(72,&'

N*&(3$1.%%<(.661$61+.)&(.5,$"()$(6&1/$13(+'()*&($"&()*.)(0+%%(3.\+3+=&(*.66+"&''(."7(1&725&(6.+"(."7('2C&1+"-

UTILITARIANISM“Maximize the Good”

KANTIANISM“Do Your Duty”

VIRTUE ETHICS“Be a Good Person”