structure for 'Metaethics'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 1. Nature of Ethics / d. Ethical theory

[the need for, and value of, formal ethical systems]

28 ideas
What knowledge is required to live well? [Plato]
     Full Idea: What knowledge would enable us to live finely for the rest of our lives?
     From: Plato (Euthydemus [c.379 BCE], 293a)
     A reaction: A successful grasp of other people's points of view might lead to respect for them. Also a realisation that we are not isolated individuals. We really are all in it together.
We aim not to identify goodness, but to be good [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: We are studying not to know what goodness is, but how to become good men.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1103b27)
     A reaction: How can a philosopher not want to know what goodness is? Can you fail to be good if you know what goodness is? Can you be a good man without understanding goodness?
We must take for granted that we should act according to right principle [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: That we should act according to the right principle is common ground and may be assumed as a basis for discussion.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1103b31)
     A reaction: Hume grumbles that we can't prove values from facts, but Aristotle that is an absurd aspiration. His 'Ethics' is simply a handbook for people who wish to be good human beings.
There is no fixed art of good conduct, and each situation is different, as in navigation [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Questions of conduct do not fall under any art or professional tradition, but the agents are compelled at every step to think out for themselves what the circumstances demand, just as happens in the arts of medicine and navigation.
     From: Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics [c.334 BCE], 1104a08)
     A reaction: It is interesting that some areas of medicine, and a lot of navigation, have become much more precise in modern times. His thought sounds pessimistic, but it is a lynchpin of virtue theory. 'Have the right disposition, then attend to the details'.
Good and evil are what please us; goodness and badness the powers causing them [Hobbes]
     Full Idea: We call good and evil the things that please and displease us; and so we call goodness and badness, the qualities of powers whereby they do it.
     From: Thomas Hobbes (The Elements of Law [1640], I.7.3), quoted by Richard Tuck - Hobbes Ch.2
     A reaction: It is pointed out by Tuck that this is just like his treatment of colour terms (values as secondary qualities). I would have thought it was obvious that I could say 'x pleases me, although I disapprove of it' (e.g. black humour).
There couldn't be a moral rule of which a man could not justly demand a reason [Locke]
     Full Idea: There cannot any one moral rule be proposed, whereof a man may not justly demand a reason.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.03.04)
     A reaction: I am more with Locke than Williams here. One can demand reasons up to the point where no one can provide them. Then we look for plan B, which probably ought to be conservative.
We should no more expect ethical theory to produce good people than aesthetics to produce artists [Schopenhauer]
     Full Idea: We should be just as foolish to expect that our moral systems and ethics would create virtuous, noble and hold men, as that our aesthetics would produce poets, painterd and musicians.
     From: Arthur Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Idea [1819], I 271), quoted by Christopher Janaway - Schopenhauer 7 'Against'
     A reaction: Presumably the aim of ethical theory is to understand the truths about ethics. That can't do any harm, can it? In every other area of life we think that understanding leads to improvement. Unless, of course, there are no truths of ethics....
The very idea of a critique of morality is regarded as immoral! [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Even to think of criticising morality, to consider morality as a problem, as problematic: what? was that not - is that not - immoral?
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Dawn (Daybreak) [1881], Pref 3)
     A reaction: Offering critiques of the value of morality and of truth are perhaps Nietzsche's greatest achievements.
I doubt whether ethics is part of philosophy [Russell]
     Full Idea: I hardly think myself that ethics ought to be included in the domain of philosophy.
     From: Bertrand Russell (An Outline of Philosophy [1927], Ch.22)
     A reaction: He declines to give his reasons. The implication of the chapter is that ethics is essentially a social and political matter, so that individual ethical guidelines are unimportant. Maybe the woolliness of ethics was also an impediment.
Moral theories are all meta-ethical, and are neutral as regards actual conduct [Ayer]
     Full Idea: All moral theories, intuitionist, naturalistic, objectivist, emotive, and the rest, in so far as they are philosophical theories, are neutral as regards actual conduct; they belong to the field of meta-ethics, not ethics proper.
     From: A.J. Ayer (On the analysis of moral judgements [1949])
     A reaction: Interestingly, Ayer doesn't seem willing to accept 'ethics proper' as being 'philosophical'. Given the modern rise of applied ethics, it seems suprising to say that even normative ethics is not philosophical. Utilitarianism seems not to be philosophical.
Moral judgements cannot be the logical consequence of a moral philosophy [Ayer]
     Full Idea: A moral philosopher will have his moral standards and will sometimes make moral judgements, but these moral judgements cannot be a logical consequence of his philosophy.
     From: A.J. Ayer (On the analysis of moral judgements [1949], p.247)
     A reaction: I take this to be an assertion of the is-ought distinction. Personally this strikes me as totally false. Ayer needs to think more deeply about moral philosophy!
Discussing ethics is pointless; moral people behave badly, and integrity doesn't need rules [Camus]
     Full Idea: There can be no question of holding forth on ethics. I have seen people behave badly with great morality and I note every day that integrity has no need of rules.
     From: Albert Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus [1942], 'Abs Man')
     A reaction: I don't agree. If someone 'behaves badly with great morality' there is something wrong with their morality, and I want to know what it is. The last part is more plausible, and could be a motto for Particularism. Rules dangerously over-simplify life.
Philosophers study the consequences of ethics instead of its origins [Wilson,EO]
     Full Idea: Philosophers examine the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences and not their origins.
     From: Edmund O. Wilson (On Human Nature [1978], Ch.1)
     A reaction: He is interested in biological origins, but it strikes me that every moral theory has some account of the origins of morality, be it pure reason, or the love of pleasure, or human nature, or eternal ideas, or the will of God, or selfish desires.
Ranking order of desires reveals nothing, because none of them may be considered important [Frankfurt]
     Full Idea: Ranking desires in order of preference is no help, because a person who wants one thing more than another may not regard the former as any more important to him than the latter.
     From: Harry G. Frankfurt (The Reasons of Love [2005], 1.5)
     A reaction: A salutary warning. Someone may pursue something with incredible intensity, but only to stave off a boring and empty existence. The only way I can think of to assess what really matters to people is - to ask them!
Kant and Mill both try to explain right and wrong, without a divine lawgiver [Taylor,R]
     Full Idea: Kant and Mill were in total agreement in trying to give content to the distinction between moral right and wrong, without recourse to any divine lawgiver.
     From: Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.14)
     A reaction: A nice analysis, in tune with MacIntyre and others, who see such attempts as failures. It is hard, however, to deny the claims of rational principles, or of suffering, in our moral framework. I agree with Taylor's move back to virtue, but it ain't simple.
Morality based on 'forbid', 'permit' and 'require' implies someone who does these things [Taylor,R]
     Full Idea: If morality is based on wrong (meaning 'forbidden'), right ('permitted'), and obligatory ('required'), we are led to ask 'Who is it that thus permits, forbids or requires that certain things be done or not done?'
     From: Richard Taylor (Virtue Ethics: an Introduction [2002], Ch.2)
     A reaction: Clear reinforcement for Nietzsche's attack on conventional morals, which Taylor sees as a relic of medieval religious attitudes. Taylor says Kant offered a non-religious version of the same authority. I agree. Back to the Greek pursuit of excellence!
Philosophers try to produce ethical theories because they falsely assume that ethics can be simple [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: If there is a truth about the subject matter of ethics, why should it be simple? ..I shall argue that philosophy should not try to produce ethical theories.
     From: Bernard Williams (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy [1985], Ch. 1)
     A reaction: Bizarrely defeatist - in parallel with Mysterians about the mind like McGinn. Is there any point in thinking at all? I suggest the aim of life as the best starting point.
Moral functionalism says moral terms get their meaning from their role in folk morality [Jackson]
     Full Idea: Moral functionalism is the view that the meanings of moral terms are given by their place in the network of input, internal clauses, and output that makes up folk psychology.
     From: Frank Jackson (From Metaphysics to Ethics [1998], Ch.5)
     A reaction: Jackson considers this enough to support a cognitivist view of morality. In assuming that there is something stable called 'folk morality' he seems to be ignoring questions about cultural relativism.
Which are prior - thin concepts like right, good, ought; or thick concepts like kindness, equity etc.? [Jackson]
     Full Idea: 'Centralists' (e.g. Bernard Williams) say thin ethical concepts (right, good, ought) are conceptually fundamental; 'non-centralists' (e.g. Susan Hurley) say that such concepts are not conceptually prior to kindness, equity and the like.
     From: Frank Jackson (From Metaphysics to Ethics [1998], Ch.5)
     A reaction: My immediate intuition is to side with Susan Hurley, since morality grows out of immediate relationships, not out of intellectual principles and theoretical generalisations. This would go with particularist views of virtue theory.
There is no one theory of how to act (or what to believe) [Nagel]
     Full Idea: To look for a single general theory of how to decide the right thing to do is like looking for a single theory of how to decide what to believe.
     From: Thomas Nagel (The Fragmentation of Value [1977], p.135)
     A reaction: Depends on your level of generality. Values and virtues are general guides which should be brought to every action, with 'higher' values guiding choice of what is relevant.
Deep ethical theory is very controversial, but we have to live with higher ethical practice [Walzer]
     Full Idea: The substructure of the ethical world is a matter of deep and unending controversy, Meanwhile, however, we are living in the superstructure.
     From: Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars [1977], Pref)
     A reaction: This may be the best approach to ethics. Nearly all applied ethics takes the common sense consensus on values for granted. Personally I think that is because the substructure is the obvious success and failure of human functioning.
We still have the appearance and language of morality, but we no longer understand it [MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: We possess simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have - very largely, if not entirely - lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality.
     From: Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory [1981], Ch. 1)
     A reaction: MacIntyre's famous (or notorious) assault on modern ethics. We obviously can't prove him wrong by spouting moral talk. Are we actually more wicked than our ancestors? There is, I think, a relativism problem in the 20th centurty, but that is different.
Unlike expressions of personal preference, evaluative expressions do not depend on context [MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: There are good reasons for distinguishing between expressions of personal preference and evaluative expressions, as the first depend on who utters them to whom, while the second are not dependent for reason-giving force on the context of utterance.
     From: Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory [1981], Ch. 2)
     A reaction: The sceptics will simply say that in the second type of expression the speaker tries to adopt a tone of impersonal authority, but it is merely an unjustified attempt to elevate personal preferences. "Blue just IS the best colour".
Moral judgements now are anachronisms from a theistic age [MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: Moral judgements are linguistic survivals from the practices of classical theism which have lost the context provided by these practices.
     From: Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory [1981], Ch. 5)
     A reaction: He is sort of right. Richard Taylor is less dramatic and more plausible on this (Ideas 5065, 5066, 5077). Big claims about 'duty' have become rather hollow, but the rights and wrongs of (e.g.) mistreating children don't seem to need theism.
Some philosophers always want more from morality; for others, nature is enough [Blackburn]
     Full Idea: The history of moral theory is largely a history of battles between people who want more (truth, absolutes...) - Plato, Locke, Cudworth, Kant, Nagel - and people content with what we have (nature) - Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Hume, Stevenson.
     From: Simon Blackburn (Précis of 'Ruling Passions' [2002], p.133)
     A reaction: [Thanks to Neil Sinclair for this one] As a devotee of Aristotle, I like this. I'm always impressed, though, by people who go the extra mile in morality, because they are in the grips of purer and loftier ideals than I am. They also turn into monsters!
Modern moral theory concerns settling conflicts, rather than human fulfilment [Zagzebski]
     Full Idea: Modern ethics generally considers morality much less a system for fulfilling human nature than a set of principles for dealing with individuals in conflict.
     From: Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Virtues of the Mind [1996], II 7)
     A reaction: Historically I associate this move with Hugo Grotius around 1620. He was a great legalist, and eudaimonist virtue ethics gradually turned into jurisprudence. The Enlightenment sought rules for resolving dilemmas. Liberalism makes fulfilment private.
The problems is not justifying ethics, but motivating it. Why should a self seek its good? [Critchley]
     Full Idea: The issue is not so much justification as motivation, that in virtue of which the self can be motivated to act on some conception of the good. ...How does a self bind itself to whatever it determines as its good?
     From: Simon Critchley (Impossible Objects: interviews [2012], 2)
     A reaction: That is a bold and interesting idea about the starting point for ethics. It is always a problem for Aristotle, that he can offer no motivation for the quest for virtue. Contractarians start from existing motivations, but that isn't impressive.
There is a new sort of moral scepticism, about the possibility of moral theories [Statman]
     Full Idea: Since the 1980s, ethics has witnessed a new sort of moral scepticism, this time about the possibility of moral theories.
     From: Daniel Statman (Introduction to Virtue Ethics [1997], §4)
     A reaction: He cites McDowell, Williams, Nussbaum and Baier as the culprits. 'Particularism' (every situation is different, so there can't be rules) seems an essential part of virtue theory, but total absence of principles sounds to me like moral drift.