Philosophy Unit 1 Why should I be moral? (cont) 11th October 2013 AS Philosophy Jez Echevarría

Objectives To examine where morality may come from To begin to understand why we act morally To consider Egoism and Social Contract as explanations for morality

Why should I be moral? Morality as social contract  Three sub-units Morality as a constitutive of self-interest Morality as overcoming self-interest

Ethical Egoism Moral action becomes a mater of calculation rather than doing the right thing. You might consider other people’s interests only in so far as they further your interest. Machiavelli (1469-1527) The Prince The prince should try to do good but needs to be able to do evil if the need arises because otherwise he will taken advantage of. An egoist, by his or her very nature would not want to universalise egoism because everyone behaving that way will eventually negate the advantages. This would be inconsistent in that the egoist denies others what he/she want for him/herself

Psychological Egoism Human nature is such that we can’t do anything about our propensity to act out of pure self-interest We act morally because if benefits us and furthers our own life Friederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) Beyond Good and Evil (1886) “the will to power” Life is the will to power and every living thing acts to release its strength and further its own sake (sipo matador plant example)

Psychological Egoism Story about Abraham Lincoln who claimed that all men were motivated by selfishness, but acted apparently selflessness, jumping out of a coach to save some pigs from a swamp. When asked why he did this as it went against his claim about human nature, he answered that his actions were the very essence of selfishness since had he not saved the pigs he would have lost “peace of mind”

Criticisms of Psychological Egoism Is the factual account correct? We could deny the facts that are presented about people and their motivations. Even if the facts are correct, they are simply descriptive and do not tell us what we ought to do Nietzsche and Machiavelli draw questionable moral conclusions from their work that are seriously at odds with conventional notions of right and wrong In short, where is the evidence to back the claim that human motivation is solely selfish?

Criticisms (cont) If every action is performed soley to gain peace of mind or to gain power, then how it is achieved is not important. You can get peace of mind by killing someone if you are an assassin, and you could get peace of mind by helping an old lady cross the road. Both give satisfaction but are clearly morally different. Finally, psychological egoism wavers beween making empirical claims and claiming an a priori necessity about its status. What would count as a counter argument? How is the sacrifice of other accounted for in such a theory? Psychological egoism will not help us to answer the question “why be moral”. It simply tells us that whatever we choose will, due to our human nature, be in our self-interest

Contractarianism Thinking back to the prisoner scenario Morality becomes a convention Social Contract Theory We set out a set of mutually advantageous rules which we then agree to abide by so that we can limit the threat that others may pose. Essentially, we learn how to work as part of a team. The contract that we make does not have to be written down – it is, in effect a hypothetical contract Because the contract is hypothetical, we can change it when we need to, if circumstances change, making such a moral framework quite flexible

Contractarianism Thinking back to the prisoner scenario again…. Could you trust an egoist to stick to contract? Would they not be tempted to cheat? Making a contract also assumes that all the parties have common interests – this may only be partially true, or not at all true. John Rawls (1921-2002) A Theory of Justice (1971) “Rational and mutually self-interested” parties consider what the rules should be before they start the contract, but from a position of impartiality and behind what Rawls calls “a veil of ignorance” Card game analogy (p 67 in text book)

Contractarianism- Raws Rawls claims that as you cannot know the outcome of the “game”, you are more likely to agree to a set of impartial, fair and unbiased rules in case you end up being a victim of those rules – you then establish a sense of “fair play”. The “veil of ignorance” effectively turn self-interest into a more universal concern, making sure that the conditions that would allow people to be taken advantage of do not exist, thereby giving everyone (including egoists) peace of mind and freedom form the threat of being taken advantage of. But….Contract Theory reduces morality to a convention, where right and wrong are determined by what has been agreed or not. Moral obligations are reduced to legal obligations – what is legal is moral-----e.g. Auschwitz

Contractarianism- Rawls Would people operating under such a system be praiseworthy if they did good only as part of a convention and not because “it is the right thing to do”? A further problem is that of the impartiality of “the veil of ignorance” – would people be able to chose rules that are fully impartial or will those rules still reflect self-interest – in other words, would some (or all) people not want to stack the deck in their favour when deciding what the rules are? People would chose rules that will reflect their background and beliefs – Raws himself can be described as a liberal, and as such his principles enshrine the very essense of a Western liberal tradition;

Contractarianism-Rawls He puts forward three principles: 1) The liberty principle; equal rights to the most extensive liberty, compatible with a similar liberty for others 2) An equal opportunities liberty: inequalities are unjust, (unless they are there to redress the balance of an inherent inequality) 3) A difference principle: inequalities must be to the advantage of everyone in society (i.e. bottom class must benefit from the inequalities.

Criticisms of Rawls’ theory He can be accused of promoting a specific Western liberal tradition that favours the freedom and rights of the individual, not to mention a strong socialist ethic – he is assuming that the model will fit all societies…..but does it? It could be argued that his three principles are in direct conflict and hence the scheme doesn’t work – can you have freedom to own anything you like and the duty to provide for the poor? Two other Social Contract theories: 1) Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) 2) John Locke (1632-1704)

Thomas Hobbes-(1588-1679) Most famous work Leviathan (1651) Well worth checking out Squashed Philosophers website: http://sqapo.com/hobbes.htm Leviatan; a legendary sea monster with terrifying power. Hobbes believed a sovereign needed power to maintain order.

Hobbes’ theory Hobbes background (Civil War…etc) Hobbes believed that human being were essentially brutish, nasty, self-centred, and would do anything, including kill, in order to get their own way and survive. Humans are motivated by self-preservation, power and selfish self-interest. This Hobbes calls “man in a state of nature”. He also believes that all human beings pursue “felicity” – the continual satisfaction of desire or appetite. Without social control humans would always be in a “war of all against all” Humans then enter into a contract that provides an escape from that state of chaos and provides stability, security and protection of life.

Hobbes’ theory The contract is enforced by a supreme sovereign that he calls Leviathan – (not necessarily a real person) “The only way to erect a common power, able to defend men from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, is to confer all power and strength upon one single Sovereign Power, be it a man, or an assembly of men. The multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the great LEVIATHAN, or that mortal god, to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence” (squashed philosophers version). This Leviathan can use whatever force is necessary to ensure people don’t return to a state of nature.

Locke’s Social Contract theory Criticisms of Locke Next time Criticisms of Hobbes Locke’s Social Contract theory Criticisms of Locke

What have I learnt today? To set the scene for a philosophical study of morality To examine where morality may come from To begin to understand why we act morally