Ethics 2nd Shifting exam notes
MORAL COGNITIVISM
- Ethical sentences express propositions and
therefore can be true or false
- Moral judgments are capable of being
objectively true
- Ethical statements express valid propositions
Moral objectivism (realism) – Ayn Rand
- There are moral facts/values that are objective
and independent of our perception
- Objective truth discoverable by reason
- Independent of beliefs, sentiments, attitudes
and feelings
- moral principles can override each other
- exceptions are permitted (ex. lying to save a
life could be permissible)
- only one moral standard that holds universally
regardless of their beliefs
- applies only to moral claims, not social and
cultural differences
- allows something to be wrong for one but right
in another
Moral Absolutism – Immanuel Kant
- some moral truths are always true, can be
discovered, apply to anyone
- absolute standards against which moral
questions can be judged
- certain actions are right or wrong regardless of
the context of the act
- there is one correct solution to every moral
problem
- objective moral statements (T/F)
independently of what people think/believe
- no moral principle can be overridden by
another
- no exceptions are permitted (ex. it would be
wrong to lie, even to save a life)
- cannot change according to person, society and
culture
- exist independent of human existence
PROS:
- morality not based on an individual or group
preferences
- allows societies to share common values
- can judge the action of another
- provides clear ethical guide
CONS:
- consequences are relevant to whether the act
is good or bad
- doesn't fit with respect for diversity and
tradition
- different cultures have different attitudes to
issues like war
- does not take into account historical
development/cultural diversity
- does not recognize evolutionary nature of man
- ignores circumstances
- confuses what is absolute morals (open to
interpretation)
- never get anyone to agree to a moral code
(unfalsifiable)
- vary in terms of scope, application, gravity and
sanction
Ethical Naturalism – F.H. Bradley, Peter Railton
- objective moral properties and we have
empirical knowledge
- non reducible to non ethical properties
- meaning can be expressed as natural properties
without using ethical terms
- ethical and non ethical statements are the
same and verifiable using evidence
- goodness indefinable (natural fallacy – what is
natural is what is good)
- moral laws can be identified through
observation of the natural world
- moral knowledge can be gained through the
same means as scientific knowledge
-
PROS:
- what is natural is expressible
- nature is universal/morals can be universally
known
CONS:
- evidence to support that an act is right
(euthanasia) it may still break the law
- right and wrong needs humans to exist to
determine how we should live
- if moral situations have evidence, which do we
accept or ignore?
Emotivism – AJ Ayer, Charles Stevenson
- moral statements do not provide information
about the people’s feelings but expresses those
feelings
- moral claims serve as expressions of approval
or disapproval (ex. murder is wrong = boo
murder)
Moral Relativism (Anti-realism) – Franz Boaz, Ruth
Benedict
- no objective, universal moral truth
- what is ethically right varies from person,
society, history and culture
- one moral standard with a social group but
different for different groups
PROS:
- different societies = differences in particular
moral beliefs and practices
- the moral standards determined by beliefs/
practices are accepted within that society
- different views of polygamy versus monogamy/
cannibalism versus cremation
- well meaning and reasonable, people can differ
in opinions about moral issues
- different societal context need different
guidelines
- tolerance and respect for people’s culture = to
coexist
- practical for multicultural societies (mass
migration)
- rejects superiority of others’ norms than others
- generates peaceful coexistence and harmony
- rejects imperialism (imposition of one’s own
culture)
- selfishness of an individual weakens by needs of
group
CONS:
 - society’s moral beliefs and practices determine
what is morally right or wrong
- what holds in the world doesn't always depend
on what people believe in (ex. argument about
the shape of the earth)
- majority never mistaken about right and wrong
(ex. slavery is accepted but is wrong)
- there will be “immoral rebels” – do not accept
their own culture’s beliefs
- whose culture is relevant? What culture as my
own (subcultures, ex. Filipino Chinese person)
- if relativism were true, slavery and genocide
could all be morally right
- anything could be morally right as long as
society accepts it
- make no sense about society making moral
progress (cos what they believe in is already
correct, why would they wanna progress/
change?)
- moral guidelines will vary per place and change
overtime
- considered arrogant for one to judge another
- difficulty adapting to new guidelines
- cant explain well how guidance evolved and
varies
- no framework of reconciling cultures in conflict
- most societies share certain core values
- cannot persuade a more diverse audience
- rationalizes unethical behavior
- fails to appreciate certain moral values as
universal
- differentiated culture does not mean no
objective good (ex. murder)
- culture is not the sole influencer of human life
- moral problems are complex
- culture is not tolerant but divides humanity
- moral progress interferes to culture norms
- statement “all is relative” is self contradictory
as an absolute statement is false
- all are born with instinctive knowledge or right
and wrong
ANALYSIS:
- differences over fundamental moral principles
are not as widespread
- though helpful as an explanation of other
cultures, It does not justify them
- moral rules have more to them than the
general agreement of a group of people
- choice of social grouping as a foundation of
ethics is bound to be arbitrary
- doesn't provide any way to deal with moral
differences among societies
- there can be different moral standards for
different societies
- these share the same objective moral core that
holds for every society
- societies have social consciences like a person
can have a personal conscience
SUBJECTIVISM – Jean Paul Satre, Rene Descartes