Chapter 15 Ethnic Pluralism and Absolute Moral Rules

Ethical Monism Ethical monism: the family of views according to which there is one supreme rule that serves as the basis of all morality. An ethical rule is supreme if it is both: Absolute: never permissibly broken. Fundamental: not justified by some more basic moral rule. © 2021

Ethical Monism (2) Examples of Ethical Monism • Utilitarianism • Ethical Egoism • Divine

Ethical Monism (3) Advantages of Ethical Monism • Provides a unified theory • Imposes order/organization on morality But there seem to be problems with all the monist theories. • Option 1: Find a new monism • Option 2: Fix an existing monism • Option 3: abandon monism © 2021

Ethical Pluralism Ethical pluralism: the family of views according to which there is more than one fundamental moral rule. Some pluralists believe that the moral rules are absolute, but some do not. © 2021

A Challenge for Absolutism The Argument from Disaster Prevention 1) If there any absolute moral rules, then we are never permitted to break them. 2) Every moral rule may be permissibly broken, if doing so is necessary to prevent a catastrophe. 3) Therefore, there are no absolute moral rules. © 2021

A Challenge for Absolutism (2) Responding to The Argument from Disaster Prevention The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE): Provided that your goal is worthwhile, you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably cause certain harms, though you must never intend to cause those harms. This would justify a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. Worry: it can be difficult to distinguish foreseen effects from intended effects. DDE insists that Premise 2 is false. © 2021

Another Challenge for Absolutism The Argument from Contradiction 1) If there is more than one absolute moral rule, then the rules are bound to conflict at some point. 2) If absolute rules ever conflict, then this generates contradiction. 3) If a theory generates contradiction, then it is false. 4) Therefore, any theory that endorses the existence of more than one absolute moral rule is false. © 2021

Another Challenge for Absolutism (2) An Absolutist Reply Whether moral rules will contradict each other depends on their content. Moral rules forbidding certain actions, such as torture, rape, or terrorism, are unlikely to conflict. © 2021

Yet Another Challenge for Absolutism The Argument from Irrationality 1) If perfect obedience to a rule can frustrate the underlying purpose of the rule, then the rule is irrational. 2) Perfect obedience to any absolute moral rule can sometimes frustrate its underlying purpose. 3) Therefore, absolute moral rules are irrational. © 2021

Yet Another Challenge for Absolutism (2) Reply to The Argument from Irrationality: Insist that premise 2 is false. The fundamental purpose of a moral rule is to forbid people from acting in certain ways The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing: It is always morally worse to do harm than to allow that same harm to occur. Potential counter-example: easy rescue case. Is it always possible to distinguish between doing and allowing? © 2021