Ethics II The nature of moral knowledge Moral

  • Slides: 13
Download presentation
+ Ethics II The nature of moral knowledge

+ Ethics II The nature of moral knowledge

+ Moral knowledge n Do you know the difference between right and wrong? n

+ Moral knowledge n Do you know the difference between right and wrong? n Does anybody? n Is moral knowledge even possible?

+ What is required for knowledge? n There is a lot of controversy over

+ What is required for knowledge? n There is a lot of controversy over this, but here is the definition we work with in TOK: n Knowledge = n True n Justified n Belief

+ Moral truth? n Most people favour the correspondence theory of truth: a statement/belief

+ Moral truth? n Most people favour the correspondence theory of truth: a statement/belief is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts. n Do the following statements correspond to the facts? Or, do they merely express emotional reactions? n n n Murder is wrong. Smacking children is wrong. Kissing in public is wrong. Public nudity is wrong. A women should stay in the home and raise children whilst her husband earns the money. It would be wrong to annihilate all life on Earth.

+ Moral truth? Emotivism n Emotivism claims that moral statements do not assert the

+ Moral truth? Emotivism n Emotivism claims that moral statements do not assert the existence of moral facts: they merely express emotional reactions to situations or actions. n For example, saying “Murder is wrong” is just like saying “Boo to Murder!”, whilst saying “It is good to give to charity” is like saying “Hoorah for charity!” n Exercise: If emotivism is right, is there such a thing as moral knowledge? - Hint, think about the definition of “knowledge”, and the correspondence theory of truth.

+ Moral truth? Nihilism n Nihilists claim that moral statements do assert the existence

+ Moral truth? Nihilism n Nihilists claim that moral statements do assert the existence of moral facts. n However, according to nihilists, there are no moral facts. n Thus, all moral statements are false. n According to nihilists, to claim that an action is moral/immoral is as silly as claiming that an object/person has magical powers. n Exercise: If nihilism is right, is there such a thing as moral knowledge? - Hint: think about the definition of “knowledge”.

+ Moral truth? Realism n Moral realists claim that our moral statements do assert

+ Moral truth? Realism n Moral realists claim that our moral statements do assert the existence of moral facts, and that there really are moral facts. n Thus, moral realists think that moral statements can be true or false. n So, moral realists do not discount the possibility of moral knowledge on the grounds that moral statements cannot be true. n What else is needed for knowledge? n Justification. n How can we justify our moral statements? n That all depends on the nature of moral facts.

+ Moral justification? Naturalism n Naturalists claim that moral facts are natural facts. n

+ Moral justification? Naturalism n Naturalists claim that moral facts are natural facts. n A natural fact is the sort of fact studied by science. n At first, this idea sounds a bit crazy. However, suppose we accept that an action is moral if it has a good effect in terms of the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering. n What are happiness and suffering? Aren’t they states of the brain/nervous system? n If naturalism is right, how might we gain moral knowledge? (Think about WOK’s)

+ The is/ought problem n Is the following argument valid? (Remember, an argument is

+ The is/ought problem n Is the following argument valid? (Remember, an argument is valid if and only if the truth of the premises would make it impossible for the conclusion to be false) n n P 1) War causes a huge amount of suffering and never makes anyone happy. C) War is bad. n Exercise: What would we need to add to the argument to make it valid? n The idea here is that an argument with premises that describe how things are, and a conclusion that describes how things ought to be (i. e. a moral statement) can never be valid. n Exercise: Can you see how this might affect naturalism?

+ Intuitionism n According to intuitionism, there are moral facts, but they are not

+ Intuitionism n According to intuitionism, there are moral facts, but they are not the kind of facts that can be studied by science. n Moral facts, according to the intuitionist, exist outside of the natural world. n Isn’t the idea of a non-natural fact a kind of superstitution?

+ Intuitionism n Do you believe in numbers? n What is this? n n

+ Intuitionism n Do you believe in numbers? n What is this? n n OK, so what is this? n n 2 2 And this? n 2 n Are any of these THE number 2? n OK, so where does THE number 2 live?

+ Intuitionism n If moral facts are non-natural, how can our beliefs about them

+ Intuitionism n If moral facts are non-natural, how can our beliefs about them ever be justified? n Not through sense perception. Why not? n Intuitionists claim that we have a special “moral intuition”. n Isn’t this as implausible as the idea of “sixth sense”? n Lot’s of philosophers think we have a similar ability to see the truth of mathematical and logical axioms.

+ Discussion questions n Of the following accounts, which do you find most plausible

+ Discussion questions n Of the following accounts, which do you find most plausible and why? n Emotivism n Nihilism n Naturalism n Intuitionism