Philosophical Methodology

How do we investigate these topics? Ethics is not necessarily tied to religion, or to particularly good actions E.g. Mafia code of ethics Ethics is unavoidable Ethical Question: what is the good life? Is a political life the best life? A life of careless pleasure? Life devoted to knowledge, arts? How do we investigate these topics?

4 Potential ways to think about moral philosophy Ethics as scientific pursuit Ethics as derived from Religion Ethics as derived from a moral expert Think about ethics for ourselves

Scientific Method (Simple Version) Observations Hypothesis: at least one hoof of a horse is on the ground Test Hypothesis (Experiment)

Morality – how we ought to be behave – is not something we can observe (we have never seen, touched, or otherwise sensed goodness, virtue) For many things observation alone isn’t sufficient to give us knowledge E.g. morally right, wrong, God, mind

Traditional Ethics (Morality): Action x is morally right iff it is commanded by God Action x is morally wrong iff it is denounced by God E.g. Christianity: 10 Commandments Problems: Why should we give authority to Biblical Texts? Problems: Does God exist? Problems: Interpreting Religious Texts

Can we have morality without God? Christian Answer: No. Ancient Answer: Yes (Virtue Ethics) Modern Answer: Yes (Utilitarianism, Deontology) Ancient and Modern Theories of Morality are Compatible with the Existence of God, but not incompatible with a literal reading of (e.g.) Bible

Experts Generally a good idea to defer to a Doctor on issues of health, scientists on issues of Global Warming Are there moral experts we can defer to? It seems that there are not (given that there are moral disagreements among those who study ethics)

Dennett Common Sense Morality Dennett: It is immoral (and irrational) to accept moral principles dogmatically: E.g. I believe X is moral because all Christians do E.g. I believe X just because religious authority figure says its moral Issue: Are there moral /religious experts? Dennett: if so, then the onus is on that person to convince us that religiouis/moral leader is an expert

Philosophical Answer: Think through it ourselves, reasonably Give definitions for the terms we use Support our conclusions with reasons/arguments

Socratic Method Goal: philosophical knowledge Two subjects: subject (A) – the person who knows something interlocutor (B) – the person criticizing A (A) proposes philosophical position (thesis or definition) (B) objects (A) replies defends position [back to step 2] or abandon thesis [back to step 1] Stop: when both (B) and (A) are satisfied

We can only give a definition of a word if we know what it means What kind of knowledge is this? It is know how – knowledge of applying a term