PHILOSOPHY 100 (Ted Stolze)

1. PHILOSOPHY 100 (Ted Stolze) Notes on James Rachels, Problems from Philosophy

2. Chapter Eleven: The Objectivity of Ethics

3. Thrasymachus’s Challenge to Socrates “[P]eople believe in right and wrong only because they are taught to obey the rules of their society. These rules, however, are merely human inventions. Thrasymachus added that the rules of a society will protect the interests of the society’s most powerful members. So when ordinary people think they must ‘do the right thing,’ they are just being played” (pp. 139-40).

4. One Argument for Ethical Relativism • Different cultures have different moral codes. • Therefore, there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. Where ethics is concerned, the standards of the different societies are all that exist.

5. A Second Argument forEthical Relativism • If we are to be justified in saying that the practices of another society are wrong, then there must be some standard of right and wrong, to which we can appeal. The standard to which we appeal must be culture neutral. • But there are no culture-neutral moral standards. All standards are relative to some society or other. • Therefore, we cannot be justified in saying that the practices of another society are wrong.

6. Two Case Studies for Moral Reflection 1. Living Under Drones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMOzvmgVhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player 2. Abandon the Knife: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WONb6b6Yf08

7. A Needs-Based Argument for the Objectivity of Ethics (*) • All human beings have basic needs (e.g., to food, clothing, shelter, and a stable climate). • These basic needs can be objectively identified and measured. • Whatever can be objectively identified and measured can provide a culture-neutral standard of right and wrong. • If we are to be justified in saying that the practices of another society are wrong, then there must be some standard of right and wrong, to which we can appeal. • Therefore, we are justified in saying that the practices of another society are wrong. (*) Not covered in Rachels

8. Another Case Study: Rachel’s Wells http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXpkBJ5r0Qg

9. Three More Arguments against the Objectivity of Ethics • The argument from disagreement • The argument from lack of proof • The metaphysical argument

10. The Argument from Disagreement • In ethics there is widespread and persistent disagreement. • The best explanation of this situation is that there is no objective truth in ethics. • Therefore, we may conclude, at least tentatively, that there is no objective truth in ethics.

11. The Argument from Lack of Proof • If there were any such thing as objective truth in ethics, it should be possible to prove which ethical opinions are true. • But it is not possible to prove an ethical opinion to be true. • Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics.

12. The Metaphysical Argument • There are objective truths in science because there is an objective reality—the physical world—which science describes. • But there is no moral reality comparable to the reality of the physical world. There is nothing “there” for ethics to describe. • Therefore, there are no objective truths in ethics.

13. A Final Criticism of Relativism:The Evolution of Morality Primatologist Frans de Waal has identified the following basic features involved in the emergence of “morality from the bottom up”: • Empathy and Consolation • Pro-social Tendencies • Reciprocity and Fairness www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

14. Chapter Twelve: Why Should We Be Moral?

15. The Ring of Gyges Thought Experiment Glaucon’s philosophical point: immoral behavior can sometimes be to one’s advantage (but Socrates/Plato disagrees). So why should we care about doing what is right?

16. Three Reasons to Be Moral • Religion • Social Contract • Utilitarianism

17. Two Types of Religious Ethics • Divine-command theory • “God rewards virtue” theory

18. Objections to Religious Ethics • Multiple traditions • Multiple interpretations of sacred texts • Religious texts can be interpreted in nonreligious ways (ex: The Parable of the “Good Samaritan”)

19. Ethics Based on a Social Contract Morality = “the set of rules that rational people will agree to obey, for their mutual benefit, provided that other people will obey them as well” (p. 158)

20. Objections to the Social Contract • Problem of “free riders” • Problem of dependent persons • Problem of global justice • Problem of other species

21. Utilitarianism The Principle of Utility:“We should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible benefit for everyone who will be affected by our action” (p. 160).

22. Objections to Utilitarianism • Subverts conventional morality and moral rules • Strict impartiality is too demanding

23. Chapter Thirteen: The Meaning of Life

24. A Thought Experiment: The Experience Machine “Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life’s experiences? If you are worried about missing out on desirable experiences, we can suppose that business enterprises have researched thoroughly the lives of many others. You can pick and choose from their large library or smorgasbord of such experiences, selecting your life’s experiences for, say, the next two years. After two years have passed, you will have ten minutes or ten hours out of the tank, to select the experiences of your next two years. Of course, while in the tank you won’t know that you’re there; you’ll think it’s all actually happening. Others can also plug in to have the experiences they want, so there’s no need to stay unplugged to serve them. (Ignore problems such as who will service the machines if everyone plugs in.) Would you plug in?” (From Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 42. NY: Basic Books, 1974.)

25. The Philosophical Problem of Death What attitude should we take toward death? Is death something to be feared? Does the fact that I’m going to die make my life meaningless?

26. Three Religious Arguments for a Meaningful Life • God has a plan for us. • We are the objects of God’s love. • Human life is a permanent feature of the universe: death is overcome.

27. Epicurus on Life, Death, and Happiness Epicurus (341 BCE-270 BCE) was an ancient Greek materialist philosopher. He is said to have written over 300 works, but only a few fragments and letters have survived. For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain a happy, peaceful, self-sufficient life, in which one has overcome pain and fear, and is surrounded by friends. He taught that only pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and bad, that the soul is corporeal, that death is the end of both the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods neither reward nor punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of “atoms” moving in empty space or “void.” Epicurus was often attacked for promoting the pursuit of pleasure, but in fact he insisted on prudence regarding physical desires.

28. Excerpt from Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus”on Philosophy “Let no one put off studying philosophy when he is young, nor when old grow weary of its study. For no one is too young or too far past his prime to achieve the health of his soul. The man who alleges that he is not yet ready for philosophy or that the time has passed him by, is like the man who says that he is either too young or too old for happiness. Therefore, we should study philosophy both in youth and in old age, so that we, though growing old, may be young in blessings through the pleasant memory of what has been; and when young we may be old as well, because we harbor no fear over what lies ahead. We must, therefore, pursue the things that make for happiness, seeing that when happiness is present, we have everything; but when it is absent, we do everything to possess it.” (All excerpts are from The Essential Epicurus, translated by Eugene O’Connor [Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1993.)

29. Excerpt from Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus”on Death “Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore--the most dreadful of evils--is nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist. It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer are.”

30. Epicurus’ Argument about Death • Something can be bad for you only if you exist. • When you are dead, you don’t exist. • Therefore, death can’t be bad for you.

31. Lucretius (~99BCE – ~55BCE) on Death “Look back upon the ages of time past Eternal, before we were born, and see That they have been nothing to us, nothing at all. This is the mirror nature holds for us To show the face of time to come, when we At last are dead. Is there in this for us Anything horrible? Is there anything sad? Is it not more free from care than any sleep?” (From Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, translated by Ronald Melville [New York: Oxford, 1997, Book III, lines 972-977)

32. Lucretius’ Argument • My situation before birth was a kind of nonexistence. • My situation after death will also be a kind of nonexistence. • Similar situations warrant similar attitudes. • Therefore, my situations before birth and after death warrant similar attitudes. • My situation before birth does not warrant fear. • Therefore, my situation after death does not warrant fear.

33. Objections to Lucretius • My situation after death is quite different than it is before being born; in only the former case am I really deprived of something—like having had your car stolen (as opposed to not yet owning it). • Fear is future-directed; I cannot fear something after it has occurred—you can be afraid of failing a exam next week but not of having already failed an exam last week. • We should fear both our situation before being born and after we have died.

34. Epicurus’s Three Requirements for a Happy Life • Friends • Freedom/Self-Sufficiency • Analyzed Life

35. The Ecology of Happiness British statistician Nic Marks has developed an objective and universal measure for what he calls the Happy Planet Index: www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html

36. Nic Marks on Five Ways to Wellbeing • Connect… • Be active… • Take notice… • Keep learning… • Give…

37. Rachels on the Nature of Happiness • Non-religious people can have meaningful lives and be happy. • Happiness is not a goal or final state but a process or activity. • Happiness arises from the pursuit of ordinary activities.