Values Relativism

Value

(10/1/2023, 3:38:28 PM)

What is Valuable?

–

  • Intrinsic

–

  • Extrinsic

“In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect.” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 1) (pdf)

–

  • Obligations

???

- moral
    
- social, to family etc
    
- legal, pay debts
  • good for, because of

“narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly,” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 1) (pdf)

–

  • what makes it good, what conditions must suffice for it to be good

“But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value.” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 1) (pdf)

  • simpliciter
  • good for something else

Good without qualification

–

Good with qualification

???

For an ulterior reason

““pleasure is good/bad”; “it would be good/bad if you did that”; “it is good/bad for him to talk to her”; “too much cholesterol is good/bad for your health”; “that is a good/bad knife”; “Jack is a good/bad thief”; “he’s a good/bad man”; “it’s good/bad that you came”; “it would be better/worse if you didn’t”; “lettuce is better/worse for you than Oreos”; “my new can opener is better/worse than my old one”; “Mack is a better/worse thief than Jack”; “it’s better/worse for it to end now, than for us to get caught later”; “best/worst of all, would be if they won the World Series and kept all of their players for next year”; “celery is the best/worst thing for your health”; “Mack is the best/worst thief around”” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 2) (pdf)

???

“in which philosophers have wanted to know what things (of which there can be more or less) are good.” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 2) (pdf)

“I’ll stipulatively call them value claims,” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 2) (pdf)

“(like pleasure, knowledge, and money)” (Schroeder, 2021, p. 2) (pdf)

Some Initial Concerns

Good in itself:

To the extent that the world is objectively comprehensible—comprehensible from a standpoint independent of the constitution of this or that sentient being or type of sentient being—how do sentient beings fit into it? The question can be divided into three parts. First, does the mind itself have an objective character? Second, what is its relation to those physical aspects of reality whose objective status is less doubtful? Third, how can it be the case that one of the people in the world is me?

???

Is this available to us, accessible to us, could we perceive it without bias?

???

Attributive Goods

Ladd

Cultural Relativism

  1. Diversity Thesis - there is a diversity of moral opinions form one society to another, therefore no consensus concerning morals

  2. Relativity thesis - the character of people’s moral opinions is to be explained by cultural and social factors

???

1. linguistic structure
    
2. economic determinants
    
3. psychological conditioning
    
4. psychoanalytic mechanisms
    
5. historical factors
    
6. unique pattern of culture of the society in question

If cultural relativism is true, then what are ethics?

  1. CR shows what is right for one person

  2. social or cultural situation

  3. rightness or wrongness of acts is independent of agent’s situation

  4. but CR and CA do not prove that we must apply moral principles differently to different cases

  5. cultural tolerance, ethical tolerance vs. anthropological truth

  6. CR attacks ethical principles that are incompatible with tolerance

Epistemological Account, ethical disagreement

  1. if several personals possess knowledge about a proposition, they will agree about it

  2. if they disagree then, then at least one does not possess knowledge of that proposition

  3. therefore disagreement between persons with regard to some proposition is proof that one does not have knowledge

  4. CR says different societies disagree about moral propositions

  5. So one of the following is true

  1. some people in a given society do not have moral knowledge

  2. no one has moral knowledge

  3. there is no genuine disagreement

  4. epistemologist, 1 or 3, no knowledge or no disagreement

???

What’s wrong with this argument?

  1. We can classify the same action in different ways

    1. language is not inflexible

    2. Eichmann, obeying orders vs. carrying out genocide

    3. Inuit - noble death vs. geriocide

  2. local moral disagreement

    1. Kant vs. Mill, is one wrong? Ignorant of moral claim?

      1. no, but difference in reason

    2. majority rules?

      1. increasingly difficult to coordinate lies

      2. Expertise? Who are the experts? Majority and not experts

Constructive Relativism

Saving popular opinion

  1. Morality is concerned with conduct and evaluatiion that are bound up wiht social instutuions and practices, therefore it is natural to suppose that the latter in some way or other define what is right or wrong, e.g., law.

  2. the culture or popular opinion or custom then defines the concepts for morals

???

However, this implies that moral principles are  nothing but opinions

Destructive Relativism: reductionism

dissuasive definitions - neutralizing a concept through definition

description vs. emotive meaning

Describing a word vs. what that word motivates

Evil, meaning a class of thing that motivates shunning

X is good = X is approved

???

Analogously, the relativistic (thrasymachean) definition undermines the concept of justice as an ethical (motivating) concept.

“ (pdf) I hope that it will now be clear that, as I suggested earlier, relativism is not used to establish a position but is used instead as a mode of argument with which to refute other ethical positions by undermining them through neutralizing definitions. Further more, it will be clear how and why the destructive use of rela tivism is a preliminary to the construction of a new system. In other words, relativism is never used to destroy ethics as such, but only to destroy a particular moral code that is in the way and must first be cleared out.” (Ladd and The Hegeler Institute, 1963, p. 606) (pdf)

Utilitariansim

All Action is for some end

???

“All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient.” (Mill, 2009, p. 6) (pdf)

therefore

Whatever we do, there should be a clear and distinct reason guiding our actions.

???

“When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to.” (Mill, 2009, p. 6) (pdf)

however

However, philosophers have only spoken of general principles of judgments, and not reasons for acting

???

“Our moral faculty, according to all those of its interpreters who are entitled to the name of thinkers, supplies us only with the general principles of moral judgments; it is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty; and must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality, not for perception of it in the concrete.” (Mill, 2009, p. 7)

In other words

but instead of general principles, there should be one principle at the root of all moral action, or a clear ordering of principles

???

“Yet to support their pretensions there ought either to be some one fundamental principle or law, at the root of all morality, or if there be several, there should be a determinate order of precedence among them; and the one principle, or the rule for deciding between the various principles when they conflict, ought to be self-evident.” (Mill, 2009, p. 8) (pdf)

However, although there are principles for morally acting, happiness seems to be at the fundamental root of all action

???

“Although the non-existence of an acknowledged first principle has made ethics not so much a guide as a consecration of men’s actual sentiments, still, as men’s sentiments, both of favour and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their happiness, the principle of utility, or as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority.” (Mill, 2009, p. 8) (pdf)

Before Mill, Bentham had posited the greatest happiness principle

Bentham’s Greatest Happiness Principle

First,

“‘So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings.’” (Mill, 2009, p. 9) (pdf)

–

Everyone acts for the sake of happiness, yet no one will readily admit as much.

???

As such, it seems that the greatest end of action is happiness. Yet, although everyone seems to act for the sake of happiness, no one seems ready to admit that happiness is the ultimate end of action.

What is Utilitarianism?

???

“pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain;” (Mill, 2009, p. 13) (pdf)

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 2009, p. 14) (pdf)

???

  1. Act Consequentialism = an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good
Hedonism

According to hedonism, pleasure is the only intrinsic good

–

What about

  • beauty

  • ornament

  • amusement

Classic Utilitarianism = hedonistic act consequentialism

  • but the pigs

“To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern” (Mill, 2009, p. 14) (pdf)

  • But humans are capable of higher pleasures than those of swine.

  • human beings have faculties requiring more varied sources of pleasure.

    • art

    • music

    • liturgy

    • religious feeling as a kind of pleasure

    • helping the less fortunate

???

“When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable.” (Mill, 2009, p. 15) (pdf)

  • But how do we distinguish between the higher and lower pleasures? Swine aren’t appreciating drug and alcohol binges either.

  • Whose pleasures?

Amendment

An act is right if and only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”

???

“This slogan is misleading, however. An act can increase happiness for most (the greatest number of) people but still fail to maximize the net good in the world if the smaller number of people whose happiness is not increased lose much more than the greater number gains. The principle of utility would not allow that kind of sacrifice of the smaller number to the greater number unless the net good overall is increased more than any alternative.” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2022, p. 2) (pdf)

“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” (Mill, 2009, p. 16) (pdf)

However:

  • what about the concert pianist who chooses a life of drugs and prostitution?

  • what about the person who drops out of university to join the circus?

  • mental health can make us choose differently

In other words, what about mental health

–

“They would not resign what they possess more than he, for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him. If they ever fancy they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme, that to escape from it they would exchange their lot for almost any other, however undesirable in their own eyes.” (Mill, 2009, p. 17) (pdf)

???

“he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.” (Mill, 2009, p. 18) (pdf)

  • but people have different preferences

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” (Mill, 2009, p. 19) (pdf)

  • even still, they would rather strive for pleasures which are seemingly out of reach than accept those that are immediately available if beneath them

  • but what about mid-life crises?

The Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility

Why do we have an obligation to promote happiness? What does this obligation rest in?

Internal and External Sanctions

External Sanctions

  • hope of favor

  • fear of displeasure

  • sympathy and affection of the Ruler of the Universe

Internal Sanctions

  • feeling

  • pain or violation of duty

  • conscience

Combining internal and external sanctions, the ultimate sanction of all morality is conscience.

“This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilization.” (Mill, 2009, p. 57) (pdf)

Of What sort of proof is Utilitarianism?

The only proof we have that people desire happiness is that they actually do desire it.

“In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it.”

???

“No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness.” (Mill, 2009, p. 64) (pdf)

  • it seems that by general happiness, Mill means something like benevolence

“This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.” (Mill, 2009, p. 64) (pdf)

  • but people desire virtue, why isn’t virtue the end of human action?

  • intrinsic vs. extrinsic

Consequentialism

“Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).

Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).

Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent’s motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).

Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to non-evaluative features of the consequences).

Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other supposed goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).

Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to merely satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).”

“Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2022, p. 3) (pdf)

“Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person).” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2022, p. 3) (pdf)

“Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, members of the individual’s society, present people, or any other limited group).” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2022, p. 3) (pdf)

“Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (as opposed to putting more weight on the worse or worst off).” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2022, p. 3) (pdf)

“Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2022, p. 3) (pdf)