LESSON 2: THE STUDY OF

MORAL PHILOSOPHY
LEARNING OUTCOMES

• Examine the basis of morality across different

perspectives
• Philosophize on the question: Is morality objective?

• Discuss the significance of studying moral

philosophy
WHEN DID ETHICS BEGIN AND
H O W D I D I T O R I G I N AT E ?

• ethics could have come into existence only when human beings
started to reflect on the best way to live
• this reflective stage emerged long after human societies had
developed some kind of morality
• ethics began with the introduction of the first moral codes.
MYTHICAL
ACCOUNTS
W H AT D O E S T H I S S U G G E S T ?

• Morality is of DIVINE ORIGIN

• Nothing else could provide such strong reasons

for accepting the moral law.
• By attributing a divine origin to morality, the
concept of priesthood emerged.
• This link between morality and
religion has been so firmly
forged that it is still sometimes
asserted that there can be no
morality without religion.
However, the view that morality was created
by a divine power is questionable.
The Euthyphro Question:
“Is an action wrong because God forbids it,
or does God forbid it because it is wrong?”
TWO CONCLUSIONS CAN BE MADE

1)AN ACTION IS RIGHT BECAUSE GOD

COMMANDS IT
- This conclusion would indicate that God has
determined what is right or wrong arbitrarily and
no moral principle is self-evident.
2) GOD COMMANDS IT BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT
• there must be some standards of right or wrong that
are independent of the likes and dislikes of the gods.
• this position assumes a link between God and Morality
but argues that moral values are not established by
God’s will. Rather He operates according to moral laws
already existing in the universe.
WHY IS THIS A DILEMMA?
• For atheists this is not a problem; atheists accept that morality
exists and is unexplained but does not require an explanation.
• It does present a dilemma for those who do believe in God. God
is either bound by Moral laws (and is not omnipotent) or is
inconsistent in his commands of morality (and therefore is not
omnibenevolent)
Since Valid Moral Philosophy is not contingent on
arbitrary standards, this Socratic Argument rejects the
Divine Command Theory as an effective moral
philosophy
PROBLEMS OF DIVINE
ORIGIN
• even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is
impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of
morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is
needed.
• those who receive divine revelations, or who consider
themselves qualified to interpret them, do not always agree on
what is good and what is evil.
• No accepted criterion for the authenticity of a revelation or an
interpretation
PREHUMAN
ETHICS
 NON-HUMAN BEHAVIOR

• living in social groups is a characteristic that humans share

with many other animal species—including their closest
relatives, the apes—presumably the common ancestor of
humans and apes also lived in social groups.
• The theory of evolution explains that the traces of the
origins of human morality can be found on social behavior
of nonhuman animals
No group can stay
together if its
members make
frequent,
unrestrained attacks
on each other.
• Like humans, social animals may behave in ways that benefit
other members of the group at some cost or risk to
themselves.
• It may be thought that the existence of such apparently
altruistic behavior is odd, for evolutionary theory states that
those who do not struggle to survive and reproduce will be
eliminated through natural selection.
• Evolution need not be so ruthless.

• Some of this altruistic behavior is explained by kin

selection. The most obvious examples are those in which
parents make sacrifices for their offspring.
• If wolves help their cubs to survive, it is more likely that
genetic characteristics, including the characteristic of
helping their own cubs, will spread through further
generations of wolves.
KINSHIP AND
RECIPROCITY
• When apparent altruism is not between kin, it may be
based on reciprocity.
• Reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, if the
costs of helping are less than the benefits of being
helped and if animals will not gain in the long run by
“cheating”—that is to say, by receiving favors without
returning them.
The idea of reciprocity suggests
that the best way to ensure that
those that cheat do not prosper
is for animals to be able to
recognize cheats and refuse
them the benefits of
cooperation the next time
around.
COULD THESE FORMS OF
BEHAVIOR BE THE BASIS
OF HUMAN ETHICS?
• Kinship is a source of obligation in every human
society.
For example:
A mother’s duty to look after her children is recognized
in every known society, and the duty of a father to
support and protect his family is almost as widely
maintained.
• If kinship is the most basic and universal tie
between human beings, the bond of reciprocity is
not far behind.
• It would be difficult to find a society that did not
recognize, at least under some circumstances, an
obligation to return favors.
Potlatch is a system of gift
giving with political, religious,
kinship and economic
implications. These societies'
economies are marked by the
competitive exchange of gifts, in
which gift-givers seek to out-
give their competitors so as to
capture important political,
kinship and religious roles.
• The reciprocators are likely to react in a hostile and
angry way to those who do not reciprocate.
• Perhaps they will regard reciprocity as good and “right”
and cheating as bad and “wrong.”
• From here it is a small step to concluding that the worst
of the non-reciprocators should be driven out of society
or else punished in some way so that they will not take
advantage of others again.
• Thus, a system of punishment and a notion of just
desert constitute the other side of reciprocal altruism.
• Each society has a clear interest in promoting devotion to
the group and can be expected to develop cultural
influences that exalt those who make sacrifices for the sake
of the group and revile those who put their own interests
too far ahead.
• More tangible rewards and punishments may supplement
the persuasive effect of social opinion.
• This is the start of a process of cultural development of
moral codes.
• Research in psychology and the neurosciences has thrown
light on the role of specific parts of the brain in moral
judgment and behavior, suggesting that emotions are
strongly involved in moral judgments, particularly those that
are formed rapidly and intuitively.
• Research also indicates that people sometimes use
reasoning processes to reach moral judgments that
contradict their usual intuitive responses.
ANTH RO PO LO G I CAL
PERSPECTI V E
• Morality is simply a matter of what is customary
and that it thus is always relative to societies.
• According to this view, no moral principle can be
valid except in the societies in which it is held.
From the standpoint of ethics, whether human
moral codes are closely parallel to one another or
are extraordinarily diverse, the question of how an
individual should act remains open.
IS MORALITY
OBJECTIVE? OR
R E L AT I V E ?
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDYING
MORAL PHILOSOPHY
• Studying Moral Philosophy matters because:

• (1) it is part of how many groups define themselves and thus

part of the identity of their individual members,
• (2) values in most ethical systems both reflect and foster close
human relationships and mutual respect and trust, and
• (3) it could be “rational” for a self-interested person to be
moral, because his or her self-interest is arguably best served
in the long run by reciprocating the moral behavior of others.