INTRO TO ETHICS
LESSON 1:
Ethics comprehends three sub-disciplines:
- Metaethics: are moral judgments just feelings, can they be correct or incorrect? What
determines whether moral views are correct or incorrect? How might we come to know facts
about what is morally right and wrong?
These questions are meta questions about the existence and the status and nature of ethics as
such.
- Normative ethics: what ought one, morally, to do? What moral rules, principles, doctrines,
ought one to accept?
- Applied ethics: moral analysis of real life issues
Another different and new subfield is Moral Psychology: asks questions about the psychological aspects
of moral (or not so moral) actions.
How to do ethics? - moral reasoning
There is no definitive answer to how to do ethics because how you do ethics is itself a subject of
discussion. it may, for example, depend on your meta-ethical and normative position.
Yet there are common methodologies, and all imply engaging in moral reasoning:
The main type of moral reasoning is FORMAL LOGIC: the study of arguments.
Philosophy deals with arguments in response to other arguments.
Formal logic tries to formalize arguments through for example, through syllogisms:
2 premises and a conclusion.
A syllogism is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises (validity) and
The argument is sound if the premises are also true (implying that the conclusion is also true).
An argument is said to be logically valid when the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This
is so whenever it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. In other words,
an argument is valid when, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true too.
Valid arguments from true premises: such arguments are said to be sound as well as valid.
Common argumentative fallacies:
There can be Circularity or ‘begging the question’ fallacies:
Fallacy that we get if the premises of the argument already assume the truth of the conclusion, rather
than provide an argument for the conclusion;
ex. God exists because the bible says so,
The bible is true, as it is the word of god
So god exists
1
,= here the argument in favor of the existence of God already assumes the existence
Equivocation fallacy:
When we confuse different meanings of a word
ex. a bat is responsible for Covid
If responsible you should be punished
So, all bats should be punished
= here we confuse two different meanings of responsibility: moral responsibility applies to humans and
imply punishment or reward, while causal responsibility which means just causing something applies to
the bat who as no conscience.
In Ethics we deal with arguments that aren’t formally logic, which provide us with good evidence for a
claim rather than with conclusive proof:
- Arguments from analogy ex. Enoch
An argument from analogy draws on accepted similarities between two phenomena to support the
conclusion that some further similarity exists.
Ex. relative similar in some way:
Tobacco is addictive and therefore subject to regulatory measures among which prohibition for children;
Social media is also addictive and if it is should be subject to similar regulatory measures, like being
prohibited to children.
These arguments are strong if the analogy is strong but we can often appeal to some features of the
similarity to invalid the whole argument (=tobacco is addictive in a physical way, while social media in
a more mental health sense, if we can show that this difference is relevant, we have a valid criticism).
- Argument to the Best Explanation (another argument which can provide good evidence and is
not formally logic) ex. cultural relativism argument
When dealing with lots of data, it’s difficult to give a certain answer, so instead we provide arguments to
the best explanation.
This argument looks at all data and selects the theory, which is most likely to be true according to them.
Given all the available evidence/data, the theory is likely to be true.
• Smoking and Lung cancer: the theory that smoking causes lung cancer is likely to be true, it can be
the case that there are some other underlying factors, but given all the data, that theory is the best
explanation.
These arguments also deal with Moral intuitions:
We try to find the ethical theory which best accounts for (most of) our moral intuitions about cases.
If a theory is consistent with lots of intuitions, it gives us good evidence to think that that theory is a
good one.
Thought Experiments and Case studies are used to expose these intuitions.
2
,STUDY QUESTION 1 : Fact\value distinction
What is meant by the fact/value distinction?
When we deal with facts we are interested in what the world is like (descriptive method), when we deal
with values we are interested in what the world should be like (normative).
The distinction is important because, as Hume says, we cannot derive an ‘ought’ (how things should be),
from an ‘is’ (what things are like).
Summary of first chapter
In this chapter I have introduced the idea of moral philosophy as a reflection on the nature of morality
and the moral problems we face, and sug-ested that part of the point of studying moral philosophy is to
help you form your moral outlook on life, understanding what is important in thinking through the
variety of life choices you and others inevitably will face.
I explained the distinction between (a) meta-ethics— questions about the nature and existence of value;
(b) normative ethics—questions about what we should do and how we should live; and (c) applied
ethics— questions about specific moral problems. I went on to introduce some techniques of reasoning
that are commonly used in moral philosophy. I split these methodological issues into four types: (a)
formal methods that apply to any form of reasoning; (b) less formal methods that also apply to all
subject areas;
(c) thought experiments and moral intuitions; and (d) some special moral arguments, including
universalization and the is/ought distinction. While none of these methodologies provide infallible rules
about how to engage in moral philosophy, they are all useful starting points.
Discussion Questions
1. Explain the distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics.
2. What is the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument?
When is a valid argument also sound?
3. What is a thought experiment? How can thought experiments be used in
moral arguments?
4. What is meant by the fact/value distinction?
3
, MORAL OBJECTIVISM
‘Ethical objectivism is the view that there are some objective moral standards. Given my understanding
of objectivity, this amounts to the view that these standards apply to everyone, even if people don’t
believe that they do, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy a person’s desires.
Moral claims are objectively true whenever they accurately tell us what these moral standards are, or tell
us about what these standards require or allow us to do.’
(Shafer-Landau (2015)
= Moral standards are mind-independent
David Enoch
In his paper, he says not to look at reported ‘meta theories’, since self-report is not always reliable, as
people may report a belief but act differently.
He is interested in our actual engaged behavior and our implicit beliefs = he claims that when we look at
that, many more of us are actually objectivists compared to the amount of people that report to be
objectivists.
“You may think that you're a moral relativist or subjectivist, but when we start, that is, thinking
philosophically about our moral discourse and practice - thoughts about morality's objectivity become
almost irresistible.
One way in which he tries to show that we are objectivists, is The Spinach Test:
Consider the following joke:
A child says: I’m glad I don’t like spinach.
Parent: Why?
Child: Because if I liked it, I would have eaten it, and it’s yucky!
The child is making a mistake in this popular joke, if he liked it, he wouldn’t said that it was yucky.
A variation of this is:
Child: I’m glad I wasn’t born in the Middle Ages.
Parent: Why?
Child: Because if I was, I would have believed that the Earth is in the center of the universe, and that’s
false!
= the idea is that there is no mistake in here.
Third example:
Child: I’m glad I wasn’t born in the 18th century.
Parent: Why?
Child: Because if I was, I would have accepted slavery and racism, and it’s wrong!
= Enoch claims that most people would say that this joke is not funny either, because it is true as the
previous example was.
We see that the wrongness of slavery is our implicit belief, similar to the belief of the earth being the
center of the universe.
4
LESSON 1:
Ethics comprehends three sub-disciplines:
- Metaethics: are moral judgments just feelings, can they be correct or incorrect? What
determines whether moral views are correct or incorrect? How might we come to know facts
about what is morally right and wrong?
These questions are meta questions about the existence and the status and nature of ethics as
such.
- Normative ethics: what ought one, morally, to do? What moral rules, principles, doctrines,
ought one to accept?
- Applied ethics: moral analysis of real life issues
Another different and new subfield is Moral Psychology: asks questions about the psychological aspects
of moral (or not so moral) actions.
How to do ethics? - moral reasoning
There is no definitive answer to how to do ethics because how you do ethics is itself a subject of
discussion. it may, for example, depend on your meta-ethical and normative position.
Yet there are common methodologies, and all imply engaging in moral reasoning:
The main type of moral reasoning is FORMAL LOGIC: the study of arguments.
Philosophy deals with arguments in response to other arguments.
Formal logic tries to formalize arguments through for example, through syllogisms:
2 premises and a conclusion.
A syllogism is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises (validity) and
The argument is sound if the premises are also true (implying that the conclusion is also true).
An argument is said to be logically valid when the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This
is so whenever it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. In other words,
an argument is valid when, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true too.
Valid arguments from true premises: such arguments are said to be sound as well as valid.
Common argumentative fallacies:
There can be Circularity or ‘begging the question’ fallacies:
Fallacy that we get if the premises of the argument already assume the truth of the conclusion, rather
than provide an argument for the conclusion;
ex. God exists because the bible says so,
The bible is true, as it is the word of god
So god exists
1
,= here the argument in favor of the existence of God already assumes the existence
Equivocation fallacy:
When we confuse different meanings of a word
ex. a bat is responsible for Covid
If responsible you should be punished
So, all bats should be punished
= here we confuse two different meanings of responsibility: moral responsibility applies to humans and
imply punishment or reward, while causal responsibility which means just causing something applies to
the bat who as no conscience.
In Ethics we deal with arguments that aren’t formally logic, which provide us with good evidence for a
claim rather than with conclusive proof:
- Arguments from analogy ex. Enoch
An argument from analogy draws on accepted similarities between two phenomena to support the
conclusion that some further similarity exists.
Ex. relative similar in some way:
Tobacco is addictive and therefore subject to regulatory measures among which prohibition for children;
Social media is also addictive and if it is should be subject to similar regulatory measures, like being
prohibited to children.
These arguments are strong if the analogy is strong but we can often appeal to some features of the
similarity to invalid the whole argument (=tobacco is addictive in a physical way, while social media in
a more mental health sense, if we can show that this difference is relevant, we have a valid criticism).
- Argument to the Best Explanation (another argument which can provide good evidence and is
not formally logic) ex. cultural relativism argument
When dealing with lots of data, it’s difficult to give a certain answer, so instead we provide arguments to
the best explanation.
This argument looks at all data and selects the theory, which is most likely to be true according to them.
Given all the available evidence/data, the theory is likely to be true.
• Smoking and Lung cancer: the theory that smoking causes lung cancer is likely to be true, it can be
the case that there are some other underlying factors, but given all the data, that theory is the best
explanation.
These arguments also deal with Moral intuitions:
We try to find the ethical theory which best accounts for (most of) our moral intuitions about cases.
If a theory is consistent with lots of intuitions, it gives us good evidence to think that that theory is a
good one.
Thought Experiments and Case studies are used to expose these intuitions.
2
,STUDY QUESTION 1 : Fact\value distinction
What is meant by the fact/value distinction?
When we deal with facts we are interested in what the world is like (descriptive method), when we deal
with values we are interested in what the world should be like (normative).
The distinction is important because, as Hume says, we cannot derive an ‘ought’ (how things should be),
from an ‘is’ (what things are like).
Summary of first chapter
In this chapter I have introduced the idea of moral philosophy as a reflection on the nature of morality
and the moral problems we face, and sug-ested that part of the point of studying moral philosophy is to
help you form your moral outlook on life, understanding what is important in thinking through the
variety of life choices you and others inevitably will face.
I explained the distinction between (a) meta-ethics— questions about the nature and existence of value;
(b) normative ethics—questions about what we should do and how we should live; and (c) applied
ethics— questions about specific moral problems. I went on to introduce some techniques of reasoning
that are commonly used in moral philosophy. I split these methodological issues into four types: (a)
formal methods that apply to any form of reasoning; (b) less formal methods that also apply to all
subject areas;
(c) thought experiments and moral intuitions; and (d) some special moral arguments, including
universalization and the is/ought distinction. While none of these methodologies provide infallible rules
about how to engage in moral philosophy, they are all useful starting points.
Discussion Questions
1. Explain the distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics.
2. What is the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument?
When is a valid argument also sound?
3. What is a thought experiment? How can thought experiments be used in
moral arguments?
4. What is meant by the fact/value distinction?
3
, MORAL OBJECTIVISM
‘Ethical objectivism is the view that there are some objective moral standards. Given my understanding
of objectivity, this amounts to the view that these standards apply to everyone, even if people don’t
believe that they do, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy a person’s desires.
Moral claims are objectively true whenever they accurately tell us what these moral standards are, or tell
us about what these standards require or allow us to do.’
(Shafer-Landau (2015)
= Moral standards are mind-independent
David Enoch
In his paper, he says not to look at reported ‘meta theories’, since self-report is not always reliable, as
people may report a belief but act differently.
He is interested in our actual engaged behavior and our implicit beliefs = he claims that when we look at
that, many more of us are actually objectivists compared to the amount of people that report to be
objectivists.
“You may think that you're a moral relativist or subjectivist, but when we start, that is, thinking
philosophically about our moral discourse and practice - thoughts about morality's objectivity become
almost irresistible.
One way in which he tries to show that we are objectivists, is The Spinach Test:
Consider the following joke:
A child says: I’m glad I don’t like spinach.
Parent: Why?
Child: Because if I liked it, I would have eaten it, and it’s yucky!
The child is making a mistake in this popular joke, if he liked it, he wouldn’t said that it was yucky.
A variation of this is:
Child: I’m glad I wasn’t born in the Middle Ages.
Parent: Why?
Child: Because if I was, I would have believed that the Earth is in the center of the universe, and that’s
false!
= the idea is that there is no mistake in here.
Third example:
Child: I’m glad I wasn’t born in the 18th century.
Parent: Why?
Child: Because if I was, I would have accepted slavery and racism, and it’s wrong!
= Enoch claims that most people would say that this joke is not funny either, because it is true as the
previous example was.
We see that the wrongness of slavery is our implicit belief, similar to the belief of the earth being the
center of the universe.
4
