PHIL 1102 1st Edition Lecture 8 Outline of last lecture l. Fallacies of unwarranted assumption ll. Fallacies of ambiguity lll. Recognizing fallacies in ordinary language Outline of current lecture lV. Moral arguments V. The Naturalistic fallacy Current lecture IV. Moral Arguments A. Value judgments - A claim that a particular human action or object has some degree of importance, worth, or, desirability. - Justify “should”Ex. You can fly from New York to Los Angeles in about six hours. It takes four day to drive same distance. Conclusion 1: You should fly rather than drive(Saving time is important)Conclusion 2: You should drive rather than fly (Seeing the country is important) - Moral value judgment focus on human actions as good/ bad; right/wrong- Murder is wrong - You should always tell the truth - Personal taste (subjective) vs. fact (objective)- Anchovies taste great- Anchovies are small fish belonging to the herring family- “Should” is also used as a directive:- Prescriptive: to offer advice, to recommend what to do - Normative: establish standards for correct moral behavior B. Moral Theories- Moral theories focus on - Consequences of human actions- Inherent rightness/wrongness of human actions- Six theories- Emotivism - Egoism- Utilitarianism - Deontology- Situation ethics- Relativism a. Emotivism: Moral value judgments are merely expressions of our attitudes or emotions. o Rejects idea that moral value judgment are in a way descriptions of objective moral facts.o Moral value judgment are no different fro other personal value judgments. “Murder is wrong” is a personal judgment o Criticism: if emotivism is correct, there should be no objective moral aspect t consider in moral disputes involving neglect, responsibility, and blame b. Consequentialism: A class of moral theories in which the moral value of any human action or behavior id determined exclusively by the outcomeso Based on Teleology: the value of an action or object can be determined by looking at its purpose or the end. o “Ought” is conditional o Example: Egoism, Utilitarianism c. Egoism: The basic principle that everyone should act in order to maximize his or her own individual pleasure or happiness. o Reduces the moral vale of an act to the outcome of its consequencesto one person, the acting agent. Ex. All humans ought to pursue their own personal pleasure.o CriticismHow can we know all the future consequences of our actions?How do we define happiness or pleasure for everyone?How do we measure or quantify amounts or degree od happiness or pleasure?d. Utilitarianism: All human ought to act in order to maximize the greatest pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people.“The greatest good for the greatest number”o The driving force of human behavior is the avoidance of pain and theseeking of pleasure o Every human action is universalizable. o Jeremy Bentham: we can quantify the results of our actions. e. Deontology: the theory that duty to others is the first and foremost moral consideration. o Deontology is the study of duties.o Immanuel Kant’s catergorical imperative: Absolute and universal moral laws, your actions or behavior toward other should always be such that you would want everyone to act in the same manner.o “ought” is unconditional o Criticism: performing a particular duty may not have positive consequences.f. Situation ethics: Although there can be general, even objective, moral rules, we should not rigidly apply those rules to every possible situation. o Acknowledge that each situation has a unique characteristics. o We must learn to balance “the letter and the spirit” of any moral rule that might be applicable to present situation. o Criticism: What guides our behavior in each of these ‘special cases’ ifnot general rules?g. Relativism: Makes two claims 1. All moral value judgments are determined by an individual’s personal beliefs or by a society’s beliefs toward actions or behavior2. There are no objective or universal moral value judgmentso Moral judgments are either subjective (when applied to an individual) or intersubjective (when applied to a society or societies).o Criticism: oppressive societies C. The structure of moral arguments - There is at least one premise describing a situation where a decision act will be made by someone (a non-moral statement). - There is at least one premise that supplies a moral rule, principle, or command (the moral premise).- The conclusion asserts that a specific action should be performed.- Compare inductive argument to moral argument:Eighty percent of Christians believe that stem cell research is morally wrong. Gerry is a Christian. Therefore, Gerry probably believes that stem cell research is wrong. Eighty percent of Christians believe that stem cell research is morally wrong. Gerry is a Christian. Therefore, Gerry ought to believe that stem cell research is wrong.D. Analogies and Moral Arguments - Analogies can be used in moral arguments to support a moral prescription in the conclusion. Ex. You told me that you think that using marijuana is morally wrong, not because it is illegal, but because it is addictive and physically harmful after long-term use. But you regularly drink alcohol, even though you are aware of studies that show that it is addictive and physically harmful after log-term use. Therefore, you ought not to drink alcohol, because it is morally wrong. The premises of an analogical moral argument try to link situations that call for moral decision.Note that this can be successful, but also might not be. All depends on how good the analogy is. V. The Naturalistic Fallacy A. Naturalistic moral principle: Since it is natural for humans to desire pleasure (or happiness) and to avoid pain, human behavior ought to be directed to the two ends. - Criticism- Commits the naturalistic fallacy: Value judgments cannot be logically derived from statements of facts. - David Hume’s “is/ought” distinction- The natural fallacy is a fallacious argument that concludes from the way that something is how it should be (or ought to be):Ex. All the houses in our street are white There fore, you ought not paint your house blue?- Naturalistic fallacies can be surprisingly hard to spot. Moreover, there might (perhaps as a hidden premise) seem to be a reasonable connection between the is and the ought:Ex. Murder is outlawed by all cultures we know This clearly means that murder