Ethics (survey)

This is Unit Seven of Philosophy: a survey of ethics. This unit covers in one lecture what an entire course covers in nine, so it moves fast and it moves by objection. Each theory is stated, then met with the objection that its own tradition considers the serious one. It opens with a structural point that governs everything after it. Facts about how things are never by themselves deliver a conclusion about how they ought to be. Somewhere in every moral argument there is a premise about what ought to be the case — and that premise is where the disagreement actually lives. Then five answers, in the order they answer each other: morality set by a culture, by a speaker, by a command, by consequences, by duty, by character, and by relationships. Watch which objection each one cannot handle. By the end you will be able to do five things. One: state the gap between facts and obligations, and say what it does not show. Two: state the dilemma that makes moral reform impossible on relativist terms. Three: state the dilemma about divine commands, and what each answer costs. Four: state the two objections that shaped utilitarianism. Five: run one case through three theories, and read the disagreement as information rather than as a tie.

Two entries, and the second governs the unit. Reports about how things are and claims about how things ought to be are different kinds of statement, and no pile of the first delivers the second on its own.

The two kinds.

Philosophy 0265 Normative and Descriptive Claims

That most people break small promises is checkable by survey. That breaking them is wrong is not that sort of claim at all. Running the two together lets popularity pass itself off as permission.

The gap.

Philosophy 0266 The Is-Ought Gap

Smoking causes disease, therefore quit — which conceals a premise that disease is to be avoided. Say it out loud and the argument becomes assessable. The gap does not make ethics arbitrary; it identifies which premise is worth arguing about.

Two theories that put the standard inside somebody — a culture, or a speaker — and each has a consequence its defenders did not want. Note the shape both objections take: not that the theory is false, but that it cannot say something we plainly need to say.

The first.

Philosophy 0267 Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong fixed by the local code, with no standard above cultures to judge between them. The argument in offered is disagreement: societies differ on burial, food and marriage, so no universal standard is doing any work.

And what it cannot say.

Philosophy 0268 The Reformer's Dilemma

If the code decides, then anyone challenging their own society's code is mistaken by definition — the abolitionist inside a slaveholding society errs, and improvement becomes a contradiction in terms.

The second.

Philosophy 0269 Simple Subjectivism

Moral statements reporting the speaker's own attitude. It accounts for moral passion neatly, and it makes each speaker unable to be wrong about anything they say.

And what it cannot say.

Philosophy 0270 The Disagreement Problem

One says capital punishment is wrong, the other says it is not. On this account they have reported two attitudes, both accurate — so nobody has contradicted anybody, and moral argument has nothing to be about.

A theory offering something the previous two lack — an authority no human institution can override. And a question put in a Platonic dialogue that has followed it ever since, because both available answers take something away.

The theory.

Philosophy 0271 Divine Command Theory

Both the authority and the content of morality issuing from divine will. The appeal is a foundation that binds regardless of what any person or parliament decides.

The question.

Philosophy 0272 The Euthyphro Dilemma

Is conduct right because it is commanded, or commanded because it is right? Take the first and cruelty could have been required. Take the second and a standard exists that the command answers to rather than creates.

Two theories sharing a name and nothing else — one describing how people are, the other prescribing how they should be. The descriptive one is worth watching closely, because it defends itself so successfully that it stops saying anything.

The description.

Philosophy 0275 Psychological Egoism

Every action ultimately motivated by the actor's own interest, the apparently selfless ones included. The rescuer entered the fire for the admiration, or to avoid living with having stood outside.

The objection.

Philosophy 0276 The Redescription Objection

Whatever the donor gives, and however anonymously, the theory supplies a self-interested motive afterwards. Nothing could count against it — and a claim compatible with every possible observation is reporting none of them.

The recommendation.

Philosophy 0277 Ethical Egoism

Each person should pursue their own interest — a prescription rather than a description. Its defenders argue honesty, cooperation and even generosity are winning long-term strategies. Keep it apart from the previous claim: one says we always do, this says we should.

The first of the three great theories, and the most radical thing about it when it appeared was the impartiality — everyone counting equally, with no exceptions for rank. Two objections shaped everything that followed, and one repair created a dilemma of its own.

The theory.

Philosophy 0280 Utilitarianism

Rightness measured by the happiness produced, added up across everyone affected without favour. Prince and pauper enter the sum at the same weight — and its author noted the count need not stop at humans.

The first objection.

Philosophy 0281 The Injustice Objection

A healthy person in a waiting room and five dying for want of organs. The arithmetic recommends what nobody will accept, and this is the standing case against totalling happiness without constraint.

The first repair.

Philosophy 0282 Higher and Lower Pleasures

Pleasures differing in kind rather than only in amount, with those acquainted with both preferring the higher — and the one who has known only the lower is in no position to judge the comparison.

The second repair.

Philosophy 0283 Rule Utilitarianism

Adopt the rules whose general acceptance produces the most good, and keep them even where breaking one would score better today — a hospital people fear entering costs more than it saves. The dilemma follows: keep the rule and you worship it, break it and you have abandoned the repair.

And the second objection.

Philosophy 0284 The Demandingness Objection

Impartial maximising turns nearly everything into an obligation — the film ticket weighed against a meal it could have bought. Defenders reply variously, and one reply is worth noting: demanding is not the same as false.

The second great theory, built to give exactly what the first cannot — constraints that hold whatever the arithmetic says. Two formulations, and one famous case where its author was pressed hard and refused to soften.

The starting point.

Philosophy 0288 The Good Will

One fears the reputation, the other holds honesty a duty. Identical conduct, and moral credit tracks the motive rather than the outcome. Note that inclination is not a fault here — it earns nothing.

Two kinds of command.

Philosophy 0289 Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

Practise if you want a place on the team, which releases anyone who stops wanting it. Keep your promises comes with no such release, and that unconditional form is where morality operates.

The first test.

Philosophy 0290 The Formula of Universal Law

Act only on a rule you could will everybody to follow. Make the rule promise falsely when convenient, apply it universally, and promising collapses — nobody would believe one. The rule destroys itself, so the act is out.

The hard case.

Philosophy 0291 The Inquiring Murderer

The duty not to lie appears to hold even against someone asking where a friend is hidden. Pressed with exactly this, he answered in print that the duty holds — and most readers part company with him there.

The second formulation.

Philosophy 0292 The Formula of Humanity

Treat people as ends and never only as instruments. Deceiving, coercing and using all route around a person's own reasoning. The qualifier carries the weight — hiring a plumber uses someone without using them merely.

The third theory changes the question rather than answering it — from what to do, to what to be. It is the oldest of the three in the West, and a tradition that had never heard of it reached something close by an independent road.

The change.

Philosophy 0295 Virtue Ethics

Right action following from good character rather than from a rule applied. The honest person tells the truth the way a trained musician plays in tune — reliably, and without consulting a procedure.

The objection.

Philosophy 0296 The Guidance Objection

Told to act as a good person would, someone facing a decision has an ideal and no procedure. And when courage and kindness point different ways, the theory names both and settles nothing.

The goal.

Philosophy 0297 Eudaimonia

A whole life going well, with the virtues being the traits such a life requires. The usual English translation misleads — a pleasant mood is neither required nor sufficient, and this is the shape of a life rather than a feeling.

Locating a virtue.

Philosophy 0298 The Golden Mean

Each virtue sitting between an excess and a deficiency, found by judgment rather than calculated. And this is not moderation in everything — some acts have no correct quantity at all.

And the independent road.

Philosophy 0299 Aristotle and Confucius

Two traditions with no contact both centre ethics on character built by practice inside a community. Convergence rather than sameness — one runs on roles and ritual, the other on an account of what humans are for.

One entry, and it does something the previous three do not. Every theory so far treats partiality as a problem to be justified. This one treats it as the starting point, and argues the impartial theories mislocated the subject.

The approach.

Philosophy 0302 The Ethics of Care

Moral life centred on relationships and on responsibility to specific people, rather than on rules applied without regard to who. A parent tending a sick child follows no universal formula and is not failing at ethics.

One procedure to close, and its point is what to do with disagreement. Three theories on one case will often give three answers, and the temptation is to count them. That is exactly the wrong move.

Watch three lenses on one case.

Philosophy 0308 Running a Case Through Three Theories

Run the case through consequences, duty and character, and set the three verdicts side by side. Where they part company, that is a map of what is actually at stake — and two matching verdicts do not outvote the third.

Five things you can now do. You can state the gap between facts and obligations, and say what it does not show — not that ethics is arbitrary, but that the ought-premise is the part worth arguing about. You can state the reformer's dilemma: if the local code decides, anyone challenging their own society is wrong by definition, and moral progress becomes a contradiction. You can state the dilemma about divine commands, and what each answer costs — arbitrariness on one side, an independent standard on the other. You can state the two objections that shaped utilitarianism: the arithmetic can require injustice, and it never stops running. And you can run a case through three theories and read the disagreement as a map of what is at stake, rather than settling it by counting to two.