[vinnomot] Analysing Moral Theories: (Basic 2): Analysing Moral Theories

 

Sacred vs. Secular Ethics: Comparative study of religious, secular, and humanist theories of morality

 

Part 2: Analysing Moral Theories
The TCT Act-Utilitarianism Looking for another way
Now let's apply what we've learned to evaluating two very different moral theories -- one religious, one secular. The assessment of other influential theories will have to wait until the Comprehensive Module.
The Ten Commandments Theory (TCT)
No one knows how many people accept the Ten Commandments/Islamic Shariah theory of morality, but there are plenty of people who say they do. We mean people who insist that the TCT/Islamic Shariah is the sum total of their morality, a self-contained moral code that needs no additional theoretical underpinnings. (There are many others, of course, who say that the Ten Commandments/Islamic Shariah rules are just guidelines that help us fill out a larger moral theory.) The question is, is this beloved theory plausible? The first thing to note is that the TCT/Islamic Shariah is a type of religious theory of morality called the divine command theory (DCT). This is the view that an action is right if Allah/God commands or wills it. In other words, certain actions are right or wrong because Allah/God says they are, for he is the supposed author of the moral law. The TCT is a legalistic version of the divine command theory in which Allah or God's commands are spelled out in rules stated clearly or derived from Bible in scripture or made plain in nature. or Quran and Hadith as in Islam. Another version of the DCT says that God's commands are expressed not in a set of unbendable rules, but in the dynamics of each moral situation. Christian ethics, though it can take many forms, is usually construed as a type of DCT in which the commandments are those of Christ's teachings, especially of the injunction to "love thy neighbor." Similarly many Muslims take Islamic Shariah without question, though it has 11 different factors and Quran-the supposed revelation of Allah is just one of them. Now, if the divine command theory is proved to be unfounded, so is the Ten Commandments/Islamic Shariah theory. And the DCT is in trouble. The main problem is that it is not consistent with our experience of the moral life. We can ask this troubling question: Are actions right (or wrong) because Allah/God says they are, or does Allah/God say they are, because they just are right (or wrong)? If the DCT is correct, then what Allah/God says goes. If he says that torturing innocent children is right, then it is right. If he says that raping and killing your neighbors is right, then it is right. But this notion is implausible. Our experience of the moral life suggests that some actions are just wrong, and it is hard to accept that wrong actions could become right just because Allah/God commands it to be so. Many religious people reject the divine command theory on these grounds. Those who accept the DCT/Islamic Shariah have offered counterarguments to the above, but the theory cannot be rescued. (We will discuss these counterarguments in more depth in Module 3.) And if the DCT is a failed approach to morality, so is the Ten Commandments/Islamic Shariah theory. Another serious problem with the TCT is that it conflicts with our considered moral judgments. As we noted, the Commandments (of Bible or Shariah) are absolutist -- they allow no exceptions. A rule is a rule, and the impact that following the rules might have on a person's well-being must not be taken into account. Say a terrorist steals a nuclear device and threatens to blow up a major city, killing millions of people. The only way to stop this catastrophe is for you to break the religious commandment against killing and murder the bomber. According to the TCT, killing the terrorist -- even as a means to save the city -- would be wrong because the Ten Commandments explicitly forbids such actions. But this view seems unsupportable. The news about the TCT gets worse. The Ten Commandments/Islamic Shariah theory -- like all moral codes -- is unworkable. Moral codes have sets of rules that are inherently vague. They cannot, therefore, offer much help to people who need specific answers on specific cases. The religious Commandments say, "Honor thy father and thy mother." But does this mean that children should honor their parents even if their parents abuse them? What if the father or mother is criminally insane? Does the rule apply to stepfathers? foster mothers? the parents of test-tube babies? The intent here is just not clear. In addition, plausible moral theories are supposed to help us resolve moral dilemmas, but the TCT (like other moral codes) cannot do this. When two commandments or rules conflict, there is no way to remove the conflict without appealing to a moral theory that is outside the scope of the Ten Commandments/Islamic Shariah. We're commanded not to kill and not to steal, but what if the only way to avoid killing someone is to steal? Or what if the only way to avoid killing a hundred people is to kill just one? We're told not to bear false witness, but what if by bearing false witness we can save the lives of a thousand innocent people? The Commandments give rise to many conflicts like this -- but can't resolve them. These failings make the religious TCT a poor theory of morality.
Act-Utilitarianism
Is act-utilitarianism a better theory than the TCT? In its simplest form act-utilitarianism says that what makes an action right is that it maximizes overall happiness, everyone considered. As long as an action maximizes happiness, it is morally correct -- regardless of the motives of the people involved or how the happiness is achieved. So doing the right thing means calculating how much happiness can be gained from several possible actions and choosing the one action that achieves the greatest amount of happiness. Act-utilitarianism is a humanist theory because of its strong emphasis on human happiness and the promotion of the common good. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) founded the theory and gave it its famous formula: Right actions are those that achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) later refined Bentham's theory, declaring that happiness is "pleasure and the absence of pain" while unhappiness is "pain and the privation of pleasure." This theory (and variations on it) has had enormous influence in the English-speaking world. It appeals to many because of its focus on human happiness, its noble ideal of promoting the common good, and its simplicity, (not just one's own, or not just one's community or country's welfare in relation to others!). The theory inspired many impressive changes in social policy in the nineteenth century. Utilitarianism seemed to be a rational and humane approach to eliminating all kinds of social evils within a country like England. Early humanist utilitarians were inspired by their theory to try to abolish slavery, eradicate child labor, and promote the human rights, esp. the rights of women. The utilitarian approach to morality, however, has several weaknesses, most of which are based on the fact that the theory conflicts with some of our considered moral judgments. For example, we tend to believe that certain things should not be done to people even if doing them would produce the greatest amount of happiness. We believe that it is wrong to falsely accuse, convict, and punish someone just because doing so would result in greater happiness for everyone concerned. We would think it wrong for fifty people to torture one person to increase the total amount of happiness among the fifty.  If slavery in the Old South of the United States and in ancient Greece, Rome, Islamic countries in medieval age and today-like Saudi Arabia wherre it still exists privately- dramatically improved the economic well-being and personal happiness of society as a whole, would the institution of slavery be morally permissible? Our considered moral judgment says no; act-utilitarianism says yes -- if violating someone's rights or committing an injustice maximizes happiness of majority, the action is morally correct. But in many cases we are loathe to violate people's rights and commit injustices just because happiness of majority might be enhanced. This conflict with our considered moral judgments is act-utilitarianism's biggest failing -- and probably the main reason why most philosophers have abandoned the theory. The theory also seems to conflict with our considered moral judgments regarding duties. We tend to believe that we have duties to other people, such as keeping promises and being faithful to people who are closest to us. But act-utilitarianism cannot recognize such duties, for the only duty we are supposed to have is to increase overall happiness. Even if one break promises and be unfaithful. Suppose that action X can maximize happiness in a certain set of circumstances, and likewise action Y can maximize happiness to an equal degree in the same set of circumstances. Action X, however, involves the breaking of a promise. According to utilitarianism actions X and Y are equally right because they will result in equal amounts of happiness. But we would tend to think that actions X and Y are not morally equivalent -- precisely because action X would involve the breaking of a promise and action Y would not.If breaking a promise or being unfaithful can maximize happiness in a given situation, then we should Besides these weaknesses, act-utilitarianism seems to fly in the face of our moral experience. Our moral experience suggests that sometimes we have reasons for acting that arise out of events that happened in the past. Let's say that we seriously harmed someone last week who did not deserve such treatment. We would probably think that we now have an obligation to somehow make amends. Or may be yesterday we promised a friend that we would do a favor for them, and so now -- since there is no impediment to our keeping our promise -- we seem to have a reason to try to do the favor. Or suppose a Roman Catholic Christian Nazi fanatic murdered thousands of innocent Jews or liberal Europeans during World War II. This fact about the killer's past seems like a good reason to find the killer and bring him to justice. The problem for utilitarianism is that such facts about the past cannot give us good reason to act in the present because the only relevant facts are those about the future -- about what actions will maximize happiness in the future. But this view seems to conflict with our moral experience. The past does sometimes matter in moral decisions. These considerations seem fatal for act-utilitarianism. (There is, however, another form of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism that has been proposed as a remedy for these weaknesses. We will explore rule-utilitarianism in detail in the next module.) We must keep in mind, though, that both act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism have homed in on an important truth about morality: The consequences of actions do matter. Consistently following a set of absolutist rules while ignoring the consequences of doing so is contrary to our considered moral judgments. Most of us, for example, would probably think it wrong to refuse to tell a lie even if the lie would prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. If the stakes were high enough, we would think that we were justified in breaking at least some rules. In moral theory, we can neither be a slave to consequences nor an absolutist who disregards them.
Looking for another way
Are there any plausible moral theories out there? Are there any theories that are consistent with our considered moral judgments and our moral life and that are actually workable? Yes. There are several good candidates worth carefully considering, most of which have strong humanist elements. This module has hinted at some other characteristics of plausible theories. We have seen that whatever shape a theory of morality takes, it cannot be thoroughly absolutist. Consideration of the consequences of actions is an important part of making moral judgments. But there is also more to moral judgments than calculating consequences, for some actions should not be performed even if they result in greater happiness. So we have good reasons to believe that any adequate moral theory must be a mix of consequentialist concerns and formalist structure. We will explore these possibilities more in Module 3.

 

---

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___