Introduction to Ethics

Photo: Justin Lubin / NBC.

If Moral Relativism has so many problems, then how should we justify our claims in ethics? An alternative approach, Moral Cognitivism, provides an account of moral reasoning that conforms well to our notions about good reasoning and argumentation in ethics. It also suggests ways in which our knowledge of morality may productively evolve in way similar to our knowledge in science.

In this module, there are three learning outcomes. At the end of it, you will be able to…

Explain the severe problems Moral Relativism may create for moral reasoning,
Judge whether Moral Cognitivism may offer a more productive and meaningful understanding of justification in ethics, and
Reflect on what constructive role your emotions may play in understanding morality.

Read This:

Moral Reasoning

Are There Proofs in Ethics?

Justifying a Drone Attack in Syria

Justifying a Drone Attack by Julian Worricker

Context

Recall that according to Moral Relativism there are no objective and universal moral values, norms, and principles that apply to all people everywhere. Morality is a matter of either culture or emotion, but not of reason. As we have already seen in the writings of James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, this is not a popular position. Now there are some contemporary philosophers who do endorse relativism, but they typically adopt extremely sophisticated versions that are beyond the scope of this class.

In any case, many philosophers accept something like Moral Cognitivism, the idea that morality is objective and universal insofar as whether it is morally right or wrong for an individual to act in a certain way depends on the weight of reasons for that person to act or not act in that way. So, according to Moral Cognitivism, ethics is a matter of reasoned argumentation and justification.

(Just to note: I am using the term “Moral Cognitivism” pretty loosely here, and not in the exact, technical way that other philosophers might.)

While Rachels and Rachels do not give their position a name, it is consistent with what I am calling Moral Cognitivism. In this reading, they defend the idea of morality based on rational argumentation, while providing a general overview of how “proofs” work in ethics.

(Another note: I understand that some of this is a repeat of earlier material, but it is good to be reminded of it when reading the new material.)

Finally, the transcript from Weekend, hosted by Julian Worricker, concerns how leaders in the United Kingdom should be able to justify their use of drone attacks in Syria. This illustrates how people, in everyday discourse, seem to already presume the truth of some form of Moral Cognitivism.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

According to James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, how does moral reasoning work? How is this an endorsement of Moral Cognitivism?
This type of reasoning is further explained when Rachels and Rachels compare justification in ethics to proofs in math and science. How does justification in ethics work according to Rachels and Rachels? In other words, if Moral Cognitivism is true, what is the “right” way for getting others to agree with you concerning what is morally right and what is morally wrong?
How does the Weekend discussion led by Julian Worricker illustrate the assumption that something like Moral Cognitivism is correct?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2018). Moral reasoning. In The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed., pp. 10–12). McGraw-Hill.

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2012). Are there proofs in ethics? In The elements of moral philosophy (7th ed., pp. 41–44). McGraw-Hill

Worricker, J. (Host). (2015, September 13). [Justifying a drone attack in Syria] [Radio broadcast transcript]. In Weekend. BBC World Service. (D. E. Gray, Transcription)