Challenges to Morality
A common question that prevents many people from taking a stand regarding issues of right and wrong is the question: Who are we to judge others? I’ve heard this question from students as well as adults serving on jury duty. I suspect it is a quite common question and one to which most who ask it believe they have the answer. Namely, it is not our place to judge others. After all, doesn’t the Bible counsel not to make judgments: “judge not lest ye be judged?” But, we cannot live without making judgments. The question philosophy can help with, in particular through the study of ethics, is how to make good judgments.
However, before we can directly address this point, we need to explore some preliminary topics. Why are so many people reluctant to make judgments? I believe this comes from three sources. First, people may believe that judgments are inherently negative. Second, people may believe that judgments imply objective standards, which they believe, do not exist. Third, people may believe that making judgments will cause unnecessary controversy or hurt feelings.
Let’s begin by examining the notion of judgment itself. I believe most people’s stated reluctance to make judgments (which differs from their action of making judgments) comes from the mistaken belief that judgments are inherently negative. But, the judgment itself is a neutral term. Judgments can be negative such as “she’s a bad dresser,” “he’s not a kind person,” etc. However, judgments can also be positive when we favorably evaluate someone’s athletic skill, charismatic personality, organizational skills in the office, or cooking skills. In each case, positive or negative, we are making an evaluative claim. My claim is simply that judgments are unavoidable. I sometimes ask my students who are reluctant to make judgments if they are married or in a serious relationship. When they say yes I point out that this fact alone illustrates that they must have made some judgments. Unless of course they simply choose the first person on the street they saw to marry! But, even in this case, they must have made the judgment that this was a good way to pick a mate. Judgments do imply objective standards and the problem many people have with this is their belief that there are no such standards. But, as we’ll discuss below in the challenge of relativism, there are good reasons for thinking that there are some objective standards.
A third reason for the reluctance to make judgments is very likely people’s fear of causing controversy or hurting others’ feelings. Discussing controversial ethical issues can be difficult for many precisely because they have strong emotional content. While no one suggests completely ignoring one’s emotions when addressing these issues, it is beneficial and constructive to be able to distinguish reason from emotion and to allow reason to guide and inform our emotions. This may sound like an impossible task but it can be done. Several useful philosophical insights might make this task easier. First, we should distinguish the person making a statement or argument from the person himself. Second, we should distinguish between offense and harm. Last, we can benefit from the insights of the Stoic philosophers who have had a strong influence on the psychological school of thought known as rational emotive therapy. I won’t be able to address all of these points in sufficient detail here. But perhaps an introduction to each will help clarify the issues and inspire you to learn more about these useful insights so that you can benefit from them, not only in this class but also in other classes and perhaps in your life in general.
In logic, there is a fallacy of reasoning known as an argument against the person. The reason this is a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) is that there is a difference between the person and what that person says. If you disagree with something I say that doesn’t mean you are disagreeing with me as a person. In other words, if you disagree with me it doesn’t mean you are insulting me or attacking me personally. You may very well like me as a person but dislike something I think or say. For example, if I say I think golf is a great way to relax you may disagree with that. But does that mean you are insulting me or does that mean you dislike me? No. Now while that is a fairly tame example, logically speaking the same should hold for other issues as well. Perhaps you disagree with someone’s view of capital punishment. You can say that you disagree and argue passionately for your view just as they can. But that does not mean that you dislike that person or are insulting or attacking them. Recognizing this should allow us to engage in spirited discussions without worrying about offending anyone. We just have to remember that we can discuss an issue without personally attacking or insulting someone.
Another useful distinction that will help us is the distinction between offense and harm. A good resource on this subject is Lou Marinoff’s book The Big Questions. In one chapter he asks the question “if you’re offended are you harmed?” The answer turns out to be no. Consider this. Suppose someone walks up to you and steps on your toe. You have no choice about whether that’s going to hurt. It is! So, here you are harmed. Being harmed is involuntary, you have no choice about whether to feel pain or not. Now, the offense is not like this. If someone walks up to you and says “wow, you have really big feet” you have a choice to make. The choice is how you will react to this comment. I’m sure you’ve heard the expressions “no offense intended” and “none taken.” These are very revealing. The offense is something that can be offered and it’s also something that can be taken. But, importantly for us, the offense is also something that can be refused. You have a choice in this and that’s what distinguishes offense from harm.
As human beings, we are emotional beings. But, we are not slaves to our emotions. We can reason and think and this can aid us in our emotional reactions. This was a very important insight of the ancient Stoic philosophers. The basic idea behind stoicism is that we have no control over external circumstances. What we do have control over is our attitude towards them. As Epictetus once said, “it is not things which disturb us, but our attitude towards them.” This perfectly sums up the stoic idea as well as how to handle the offense. Similarly, the Roman emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius said “if you are pained by any external thing, it is not the thing that disturbs you, but your judgment about it. And, it is in your power to wipe out this judgment now.”
Of course, this takes skill and practice but it can be learned. One good approach to learning this is discussed by the psychologist Albert Ellis who developed something called rational emotive therapy. His approach is very stoic since he maintains that what disturbs us are not our emotions themselves but our rational (or more correctly irrational) beliefs. We believe that in large part determine what our emotional response to a situation will be. If we can formulate rational beliefs then our emotional responses won’t be ones of depression, anxiety, or offense. One way to begin is to reflect on why you’re having the emotional reaction that you’re having. As Ellis would advise, ask what beliefs you have that are contributing to your emotional response. Then ask whether those beliefs are reasonable. Chances are if the beliefs are unreasonable then your emotional response may be causing you to become unhappy or upset needlessly.
It should go without saying that there is nothing at all wrong with emotions or having them. But, if our emotions are ones of depression and unhappiness then it’s good to know that something can be done to address that. Notice as we go through the texts in our class that while we’re discussing many emotionally charged issues the attempt is always being made to discuss them from the standpoint of reason. Of course, emotions inform our reason just as our reason informs emotions. The trick is not to allow either side to dominate to the exclusion of the benefits of the other.
Another very common question related to ethics regards who is to decide what counts as right and wrong. In large part, this question is misguided and reveals a lack of a clear understanding of the basic principles of ethical reasoning. Once again, philosophy can provide useful insight here. In particular, the insights of Wittgenstein prove helpful by illustrating that there are certain ways of living for human beings that all humans share; what Wittgenstein called forms of life. Just as all humans share a need to eat and seek shelter so too all humans have an interest in furthering their interests in terms of what will bring them happiness. But, don’t radically different things bring people happiness? Not really. When you seriously investigate what brings happiness you find a great deal of similarity across cultures and times. Epicurus once said that all that is required for happiness is friendship, freedom, and contemplation. Though Epicurus pointed this out centuries ago, these values still provide the basis for happiness today.
It is when we begin to investigate more specific issues that differences seem to occur and tempt people to conclude that there are no values in common and since ethics is just each person’s opinion anyway, we are left with the problem of figuring out who should decide what is right and wrong. But, the mistake occurs in thinking that there are no values in common and ethics is nothing more than opinion. If we look at ethics as being deeply rooted in how we live as human beings we begin to see that there is much we have in common and far from individuals deciding for themselves, we arrive at ethical principles which naturally further our interests as human beings. I am not simply of the opinion that murder is wrong. It does not further human interests either of the murderer or the victim. Yes, many ethical questions are more difficult to resolve but look closely at the disagreements that seem to be occurring when people discuss such issues as abortion. Are they disagreeing about fundamental values and interests or how best to preserve these values and further these interests?
We now proceed to consider ethics and morality. These terms are often used synonymously and for good reason. They both have their roots in words that mean custom; one in Latin and the other in Greek. For our purposes, we will make an important distinction between these two terms. Ethics will constitute the rules which govern morality. Morality will consist of the beliefs which inform us about good and bad actions. So ethics will tell us how to apply these moral beliefs to action. The ethical theory will attempt to justify the reasons for turning these beliefs into action. Not everyone agrees that this is even possible. In this chapter, we will consider some of the main challenges to formulating an ethical theory.
Ethical theory is different from theory in science and this point is important to remember because it tells us why some philosophers question the possibility of forming any ethical theory. While scientific theory attempts to take a collection of facts and observations and make predictions from them ethical theory attempts to formulate statements of how we ought to act. Another way of stating this is to say that ethical theory contains "normative" statements. One of the central questions in ethics is whether this is even possible. David Hume, for one, maintained that it was impossible to derive any statement of ought from a statement of what is; that is to say, you cannot derive a statement of value from a statement of fact. This is often called the "is-ought problem."
An example will help illustrate. Suppose there are two people, a man, and a woman, in their mid-30s who are sexually active (with each other). The result of this activity is the pregnancy of the woman. Now, they need to answer a question. What should they do about this? Since they are not here we will have to answer the question for them. Based on the facts I gave you what should they do? If you find this question difficult to answer you can ask for more facts. But, Hume's point is that no amount of facts will allow you to answer the question. One attempt of ethical theory to solve this will be to include a self-evident normative statement as one of the foundations of the theory. We will see how this plays out when we consider specific ethical theories. First, we need to consider four other challenges to morality.
1. The challenge of positivism. If you remember our discussion of logical positivism then this challenge will make sense. Positivism postulated that propositions could only be meaningful if they were analytic or empirically verifiable. This was called the verification theory of meaning. Now, consider how this affects moral propositions. Suppose I say 'murder is wrong." This sounds like a factual statement but when subjected to the criteria of positivism we see that it’s meaningless. After all the statement that murder is wrong is not analytic nor is it empirically verifiable. So, moral statements are inherently meaningless.
Does this mean that ethical theory is "much ado about nothing?" Not exactly. While it is true that ethical theory does not address factually meaningful content that's not the end of the story. According to the positivist when I say "murder is wrong" I am talking factual non-sense but emotionally something very meaningful. I am expressing how I feel about murder. So, moral statements are statements about our feelings. This theory is called emotivism and is more popular than you might think. To see how much of a hold it has on us listen to how people talk these days. They spend a lot of time telling you how they feel about issues like abortion, capital punishment, terrorism. The emotivist would say that this is only natural since these statements are nothing more than expressions of emotion.
Unless we can demonstrate that positivism is flawed in some way ethical theory is in serious trouble. Fortunately, we can show some significant problems with positivism. First, emotivism implies that we are infallible about our moral statements; that is we can never be wrong. How could I be wrong about what I feel? Remember Wittgenstein? But the simple fact is that human beings are not infallible. We can be wrong about our moral judgment which shows that it must have a factual component. Second, positivism does not seem to pass its criterion of meaning. The principle of verification seems to be neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. Positivism seems to be self-refuting!
2. The challenge of relativism. This challenge is serious if only because it is a more commonly held sentiment. According to relativism, there are no objective moral principles. Instead, moral principles are relative to each individual or the culture you happen to be living in. An example of individual relativism might be the fact that for some individuals, abortion may be wrong but for others, it could be right. An example of cultural relativism might be the fact that for one culture infanticide might be right while for another culture it is wrong. The question is whether this is the correct basis for morality.
The most common line of reasoning given in favor of moral relativism is that people (or cultures) have different beliefs (or practices) concerning morality. From this, we are tempted to conclude that there are no objective moral principles. But, as James Rachels points out in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy this argument is "quite simply unsound." The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow the premise. The premise concerns what people believe while the conclusion refers to "what is the case." It simply does not follow from the mere fact that people disagree that there is no objective truth. That would be like saying that since some people believe the earth is flat while others believe it is round, there is no objective geographical fact about the earth! That is simply and demonstrably false.
In addition to these problems, however, the basic assumption of relativism is simply wrong. Relativism begins with the view that people (or cultures) do have fundamentally different moral beliefs (or practices). As Rachels points out, however, this is also false. Yes, cultures do have different practices, but these practices are not based on fundamentally different moral principles. The underlying moral principles are the same; it is their expression in different cultures that is different. The reason for the differences can be traced, as we have done for the differences in religious practice, to the differences in the cultural environment.
Put simply, there are objective moral principles. As Rachels points out "there are some moral rules that all societies must have in common because those rules are necessary for society to exist." We can, at the very least, formulate three of these principles. All cultures must have a rule which entails that the young be cared for. Also, all cultures must have some moral principle placing a value on truth-telling. Thirdly, there must be some moral prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of members of the culture. The precise formulation of these principles may vary from culture to culture but no culture could long continue to survive without these moral rules. Yes, there will be exceptions to the rules. Yes, there will be infractions. But the norm must be in favor of these principles. The exceptions do not disprove the general rule any more than the fact that some people believe that the earth is flat disproves the fact that the earth is round.
3. The challenge of existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophy based on the importance of the individual. Its relationship to morality is somewhat ambiguous. One of the most prominent existentialists was Jean-Paul Sartre. From his point of view, there was no such thing as human nature. What this implies is that there is nothing human beings ought to do. We are ultimately free to decide how to live our lives. This freedom includes freedom from universal moral constraints and thus comes the problem. If there is no inherent human nature and we are ultimately free to choose what we make of our lives this must preclude the possibility of ethical theory in some sense.
I said existentialism has an ambiguous relationship to morality because Sartre's view seems to hinge on the very thing he denies; objective moral principles. Sartre points out that with freedom comes responsibility. We are free to make of our lives what we choose but in making these choices we are also choosing for all of humanity. As the Christian existentialist Gabriel Marcel points out, this is contradictory. Sartre says that there is no basis for moral judgments but then judges some actions better than others. But if some actions are better then this implies some basis for such judgments. While Sartre says that values are ultimately created, Marcel maintains that they are simply discovered.
4. The challenge of determinism. Perhaps the most serious challenge to morality is determinism. As Immanuel Kant once pointed out "ought implies can." That is, we cannot be held responsible for things we are not free to do. Determinism, however, denies free will entirely. We discussed the metaphysics of this in the chapter on materialism. If everything is governed by physical laws then human beings, and our capacity to make decisions, are no different. But the root of any ethical theory is the presumption that people are free to choose how they act. After all, how can we praise or blame people for actions they are not responsible for?
The most extreme answer to the question is to admit that no one is responsible for his actions. The attorney Clarence Darrow advocated precisely this saying to the prisoners of Cook County Jail that "I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible." So much for morality. Is there any way around this problem?
In his essay "The Dilemma of Determinism," William James points out that there is no definitive evidence in favor of either side of the debate. However, there are some distressing implications of determinism. Consider a crime that one of those prisoners in Cook County might be accused of: a murder. Ordinarily, we would say that murder is a bad thing. What could this mean? Among other things, this would seem to mean that it shouldn't have happened. But, if determinism is correct it makes no sense to say that it shouldn't have happened. According to determinism, it had to happen. So it seems that we couldn't even make a judgment that murder is bad. We also couldn't explain the human sentiment of regret that the prisoner might feel. Why regret what had to happen? Why regret something you weren't responsible for? James concludes that “our belief in free will may be instinctive. However, there are some instinctive reactions which I, for one, will not tamper with."
As we can see, there are many criticisms ethical theory must deal with. This will be no less true when we look at specific examples of such theories in the next two chapters. But despite all the arguments against formulating such theories, we must remember that, at the bottom, each ethical theory is attempting to answer a question that demands an answer. It is the oldest of philosophical questions. It is Socrates’ question. How should one live?
However, before we can directly address this point, we need to explore some preliminary topics. Why are so many people reluctant to make judgments? I believe this comes from three sources. First, people may believe that judgments are inherently negative. Second, people may believe that judgments imply objective standards, which they believe, do not exist. Third, people may believe that making judgments will cause unnecessary controversy or hurt feelings.
Let’s begin by examining the notion of judgment itself. I believe most people’s stated reluctance to make judgments (which differs from their action of making judgments) comes from the mistaken belief that judgments are inherently negative. But, the judgment itself is a neutral term. Judgments can be negative such as “she’s a bad dresser,” “he’s not a kind person,” etc. However, judgments can also be positive when we favorably evaluate someone’s athletic skill, charismatic personality, organizational skills in the office, or cooking skills. In each case, positive or negative, we are making an evaluative claim. My claim is simply that judgments are unavoidable. I sometimes ask my students who are reluctant to make judgments if they are married or in a serious relationship. When they say yes I point out that this fact alone illustrates that they must have made some judgments. Unless of course they simply choose the first person on the street they saw to marry! But, even in this case, they must have made the judgment that this was a good way to pick a mate. Judgments do imply objective standards and the problem many people have with this is their belief that there are no such standards. But, as we’ll discuss below in the challenge of relativism, there are good reasons for thinking that there are some objective standards.
A third reason for the reluctance to make judgments is very likely people’s fear of causing controversy or hurting others’ feelings. Discussing controversial ethical issues can be difficult for many precisely because they have strong emotional content. While no one suggests completely ignoring one’s emotions when addressing these issues, it is beneficial and constructive to be able to distinguish reason from emotion and to allow reason to guide and inform our emotions. This may sound like an impossible task but it can be done. Several useful philosophical insights might make this task easier. First, we should distinguish the person making a statement or argument from the person himself. Second, we should distinguish between offense and harm. Last, we can benefit from the insights of the Stoic philosophers who have had a strong influence on the psychological school of thought known as rational emotive therapy. I won’t be able to address all of these points in sufficient detail here. But perhaps an introduction to each will help clarify the issues and inspire you to learn more about these useful insights so that you can benefit from them, not only in this class but also in other classes and perhaps in your life in general.
In logic, there is a fallacy of reasoning known as an argument against the person. The reason this is a logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) is that there is a difference between the person and what that person says. If you disagree with something I say that doesn’t mean you are disagreeing with me as a person. In other words, if you disagree with me it doesn’t mean you are insulting me or attacking me personally. You may very well like me as a person but dislike something I think or say. For example, if I say I think golf is a great way to relax you may disagree with that. But does that mean you are insulting me or does that mean you dislike me? No. Now while that is a fairly tame example, logically speaking the same should hold for other issues as well. Perhaps you disagree with someone’s view of capital punishment. You can say that you disagree and argue passionately for your view just as they can. But that does not mean that you dislike that person or are insulting or attacking them. Recognizing this should allow us to engage in spirited discussions without worrying about offending anyone. We just have to remember that we can discuss an issue without personally attacking or insulting someone.
Another useful distinction that will help us is the distinction between offense and harm. A good resource on this subject is Lou Marinoff’s book The Big Questions. In one chapter he asks the question “if you’re offended are you harmed?” The answer turns out to be no. Consider this. Suppose someone walks up to you and steps on your toe. You have no choice about whether that’s going to hurt. It is! So, here you are harmed. Being harmed is involuntary, you have no choice about whether to feel pain or not. Now, the offense is not like this. If someone walks up to you and says “wow, you have really big feet” you have a choice to make. The choice is how you will react to this comment. I’m sure you’ve heard the expressions “no offense intended” and “none taken.” These are very revealing. The offense is something that can be offered and it’s also something that can be taken. But, importantly for us, the offense is also something that can be refused. You have a choice in this and that’s what distinguishes offense from harm.
As human beings, we are emotional beings. But, we are not slaves to our emotions. We can reason and think and this can aid us in our emotional reactions. This was a very important insight of the ancient Stoic philosophers. The basic idea behind stoicism is that we have no control over external circumstances. What we do have control over is our attitude towards them. As Epictetus once said, “it is not things which disturb us, but our attitude towards them.” This perfectly sums up the stoic idea as well as how to handle the offense. Similarly, the Roman emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius said “if you are pained by any external thing, it is not the thing that disturbs you, but your judgment about it. And, it is in your power to wipe out this judgment now.”
Of course, this takes skill and practice but it can be learned. One good approach to learning this is discussed by the psychologist Albert Ellis who developed something called rational emotive therapy. His approach is very stoic since he maintains that what disturbs us are not our emotions themselves but our rational (or more correctly irrational) beliefs. We believe that in large part determine what our emotional response to a situation will be. If we can formulate rational beliefs then our emotional responses won’t be ones of depression, anxiety, or offense. One way to begin is to reflect on why you’re having the emotional reaction that you’re having. As Ellis would advise, ask what beliefs you have that are contributing to your emotional response. Then ask whether those beliefs are reasonable. Chances are if the beliefs are unreasonable then your emotional response may be causing you to become unhappy or upset needlessly.
It should go without saying that there is nothing at all wrong with emotions or having them. But, if our emotions are ones of depression and unhappiness then it’s good to know that something can be done to address that. Notice as we go through the texts in our class that while we’re discussing many emotionally charged issues the attempt is always being made to discuss them from the standpoint of reason. Of course, emotions inform our reason just as our reason informs emotions. The trick is not to allow either side to dominate to the exclusion of the benefits of the other.
Another very common question related to ethics regards who is to decide what counts as right and wrong. In large part, this question is misguided and reveals a lack of a clear understanding of the basic principles of ethical reasoning. Once again, philosophy can provide useful insight here. In particular, the insights of Wittgenstein prove helpful by illustrating that there are certain ways of living for human beings that all humans share; what Wittgenstein called forms of life. Just as all humans share a need to eat and seek shelter so too all humans have an interest in furthering their interests in terms of what will bring them happiness. But, don’t radically different things bring people happiness? Not really. When you seriously investigate what brings happiness you find a great deal of similarity across cultures and times. Epicurus once said that all that is required for happiness is friendship, freedom, and contemplation. Though Epicurus pointed this out centuries ago, these values still provide the basis for happiness today.
It is when we begin to investigate more specific issues that differences seem to occur and tempt people to conclude that there are no values in common and since ethics is just each person’s opinion anyway, we are left with the problem of figuring out who should decide what is right and wrong. But, the mistake occurs in thinking that there are no values in common and ethics is nothing more than opinion. If we look at ethics as being deeply rooted in how we live as human beings we begin to see that there is much we have in common and far from individuals deciding for themselves, we arrive at ethical principles which naturally further our interests as human beings. I am not simply of the opinion that murder is wrong. It does not further human interests either of the murderer or the victim. Yes, many ethical questions are more difficult to resolve but look closely at the disagreements that seem to be occurring when people discuss such issues as abortion. Are they disagreeing about fundamental values and interests or how best to preserve these values and further these interests?
We now proceed to consider ethics and morality. These terms are often used synonymously and for good reason. They both have their roots in words that mean custom; one in Latin and the other in Greek. For our purposes, we will make an important distinction between these two terms. Ethics will constitute the rules which govern morality. Morality will consist of the beliefs which inform us about good and bad actions. So ethics will tell us how to apply these moral beliefs to action. The ethical theory will attempt to justify the reasons for turning these beliefs into action. Not everyone agrees that this is even possible. In this chapter, we will consider some of the main challenges to formulating an ethical theory.
Ethical theory is different from theory in science and this point is important to remember because it tells us why some philosophers question the possibility of forming any ethical theory. While scientific theory attempts to take a collection of facts and observations and make predictions from them ethical theory attempts to formulate statements of how we ought to act. Another way of stating this is to say that ethical theory contains "normative" statements. One of the central questions in ethics is whether this is even possible. David Hume, for one, maintained that it was impossible to derive any statement of ought from a statement of what is; that is to say, you cannot derive a statement of value from a statement of fact. This is often called the "is-ought problem."
An example will help illustrate. Suppose there are two people, a man, and a woman, in their mid-30s who are sexually active (with each other). The result of this activity is the pregnancy of the woman. Now, they need to answer a question. What should they do about this? Since they are not here we will have to answer the question for them. Based on the facts I gave you what should they do? If you find this question difficult to answer you can ask for more facts. But, Hume's point is that no amount of facts will allow you to answer the question. One attempt of ethical theory to solve this will be to include a self-evident normative statement as one of the foundations of the theory. We will see how this plays out when we consider specific ethical theories. First, we need to consider four other challenges to morality.
1. The challenge of positivism. If you remember our discussion of logical positivism then this challenge will make sense. Positivism postulated that propositions could only be meaningful if they were analytic or empirically verifiable. This was called the verification theory of meaning. Now, consider how this affects moral propositions. Suppose I say 'murder is wrong." This sounds like a factual statement but when subjected to the criteria of positivism we see that it’s meaningless. After all the statement that murder is wrong is not analytic nor is it empirically verifiable. So, moral statements are inherently meaningless.
Does this mean that ethical theory is "much ado about nothing?" Not exactly. While it is true that ethical theory does not address factually meaningful content that's not the end of the story. According to the positivist when I say "murder is wrong" I am talking factual non-sense but emotionally something very meaningful. I am expressing how I feel about murder. So, moral statements are statements about our feelings. This theory is called emotivism and is more popular than you might think. To see how much of a hold it has on us listen to how people talk these days. They spend a lot of time telling you how they feel about issues like abortion, capital punishment, terrorism. The emotivist would say that this is only natural since these statements are nothing more than expressions of emotion.
Unless we can demonstrate that positivism is flawed in some way ethical theory is in serious trouble. Fortunately, we can show some significant problems with positivism. First, emotivism implies that we are infallible about our moral statements; that is we can never be wrong. How could I be wrong about what I feel? Remember Wittgenstein? But the simple fact is that human beings are not infallible. We can be wrong about our moral judgment which shows that it must have a factual component. Second, positivism does not seem to pass its criterion of meaning. The principle of verification seems to be neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. Positivism seems to be self-refuting!
2. The challenge of relativism. This challenge is serious if only because it is a more commonly held sentiment. According to relativism, there are no objective moral principles. Instead, moral principles are relative to each individual or the culture you happen to be living in. An example of individual relativism might be the fact that for some individuals, abortion may be wrong but for others, it could be right. An example of cultural relativism might be the fact that for one culture infanticide might be right while for another culture it is wrong. The question is whether this is the correct basis for morality.
The most common line of reasoning given in favor of moral relativism is that people (or cultures) have different beliefs (or practices) concerning morality. From this, we are tempted to conclude that there are no objective moral principles. But, as James Rachels points out in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy this argument is "quite simply unsound." The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow the premise. The premise concerns what people believe while the conclusion refers to "what is the case." It simply does not follow from the mere fact that people disagree that there is no objective truth. That would be like saying that since some people believe the earth is flat while others believe it is round, there is no objective geographical fact about the earth! That is simply and demonstrably false.
In addition to these problems, however, the basic assumption of relativism is simply wrong. Relativism begins with the view that people (or cultures) do have fundamentally different moral beliefs (or practices). As Rachels points out, however, this is also false. Yes, cultures do have different practices, but these practices are not based on fundamentally different moral principles. The underlying moral principles are the same; it is their expression in different cultures that is different. The reason for the differences can be traced, as we have done for the differences in religious practice, to the differences in the cultural environment.
Put simply, there are objective moral principles. As Rachels points out "there are some moral rules that all societies must have in common because those rules are necessary for society to exist." We can, at the very least, formulate three of these principles. All cultures must have a rule which entails that the young be cared for. Also, all cultures must have some moral principle placing a value on truth-telling. Thirdly, there must be some moral prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of members of the culture. The precise formulation of these principles may vary from culture to culture but no culture could long continue to survive without these moral rules. Yes, there will be exceptions to the rules. Yes, there will be infractions. But the norm must be in favor of these principles. The exceptions do not disprove the general rule any more than the fact that some people believe that the earth is flat disproves the fact that the earth is round.
3. The challenge of existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophy based on the importance of the individual. Its relationship to morality is somewhat ambiguous. One of the most prominent existentialists was Jean-Paul Sartre. From his point of view, there was no such thing as human nature. What this implies is that there is nothing human beings ought to do. We are ultimately free to decide how to live our lives. This freedom includes freedom from universal moral constraints and thus comes the problem. If there is no inherent human nature and we are ultimately free to choose what we make of our lives this must preclude the possibility of ethical theory in some sense.
I said existentialism has an ambiguous relationship to morality because Sartre's view seems to hinge on the very thing he denies; objective moral principles. Sartre points out that with freedom comes responsibility. We are free to make of our lives what we choose but in making these choices we are also choosing for all of humanity. As the Christian existentialist Gabriel Marcel points out, this is contradictory. Sartre says that there is no basis for moral judgments but then judges some actions better than others. But if some actions are better then this implies some basis for such judgments. While Sartre says that values are ultimately created, Marcel maintains that they are simply discovered.
4. The challenge of determinism. Perhaps the most serious challenge to morality is determinism. As Immanuel Kant once pointed out "ought implies can." That is, we cannot be held responsible for things we are not free to do. Determinism, however, denies free will entirely. We discussed the metaphysics of this in the chapter on materialism. If everything is governed by physical laws then human beings, and our capacity to make decisions, are no different. But the root of any ethical theory is the presumption that people are free to choose how they act. After all, how can we praise or blame people for actions they are not responsible for?
The most extreme answer to the question is to admit that no one is responsible for his actions. The attorney Clarence Darrow advocated precisely this saying to the prisoners of Cook County Jail that "I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible." So much for morality. Is there any way around this problem?
In his essay "The Dilemma of Determinism," William James points out that there is no definitive evidence in favor of either side of the debate. However, there are some distressing implications of determinism. Consider a crime that one of those prisoners in Cook County might be accused of: a murder. Ordinarily, we would say that murder is a bad thing. What could this mean? Among other things, this would seem to mean that it shouldn't have happened. But, if determinism is correct it makes no sense to say that it shouldn't have happened. According to determinism, it had to happen. So it seems that we couldn't even make a judgment that murder is bad. We also couldn't explain the human sentiment of regret that the prisoner might feel. Why regret what had to happen? Why regret something you weren't responsible for? James concludes that “our belief in free will may be instinctive. However, there are some instinctive reactions which I, for one, will not tamper with."
As we can see, there are many criticisms ethical theory must deal with. This will be no less true when we look at specific examples of such theories in the next two chapters. But despite all the arguments against formulating such theories, we must remember that, at the bottom, each ethical theory is attempting to answer a question that demands an answer. It is the oldest of philosophical questions. It is Socrates’ question. How should one live?