then everything is permissible” “If God does not exist, then everything is permissible” James Fodor, 19th September 2014

Three Big Questions Moral ontology: What are moral claims about? What sort of things do they refer to? Moral epistemology: How can we know what is right and what is wrong? Moral motivation: Given some account of morality, why should we care? Why should we be moral?

Part A: Morality Without God

1. Moral Ontology Ethical naturalism: moral facts are natural facts – truths about the ‘natural world’ Peter Railton’s Reductive Naturalism “An individual’s (non-moral) good consists in what they would want themselves to want, or to pursue, were they to contemplate their present situation from a standpoint fully and vividly informed about themselves and their circumstances, and entirely free of cognitive error or lapses of instrumental rationality.”

1. Moral Ontology Moral good expands this to take into account the interests of others “X is morally right if and only if X would be approved of by an ideally rational and fully informed agent considering the question ‘How best to maximize the amount of non- moral goodness?’ from a social point of view, in which the interests of all potentially affected individuals were counted equally.” Reductive: moral reduces to non-moral

Objection: No Ought from Is Cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ David Hume: “For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others (i.e. ‘is’ statements), which are entirely different from it.”

Response: No Ought from Is Murder is killing an innocent person Killing an innocent person causes unnecessary suffering Therefore, we ought not murder

Response: No Ought from Is Murder is killing an innocent person Killing an innocent person causes unnecessary suffering We ought not cause unnecessary suffering Therefore, we ought not murder How to justify 3? Provide a defensible and cogent account of morality.

Response: No Ought from Is Any moral premises need to be defended, but that applies to any claim No essential problem getting ‘ought’ from ‘is’ if moral questions are statements of fact Applies to other claims: e.g. no biological claim can be derived from chemical premises

Response: No Ought from Is Proteins are organic molecules Carbohydrates are organic molecules Nucleic acids are organic molecules Lipids are organic molecules Therefore, living creatures are made up of organic molecules

Response: No Ought from Is Proteins are organic molecules Carbohydrates are organic molecules Nucleic acids are organic molecules Lipids are organic molecules Living creatures are made up of proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids Therefore, living creatures are made up of organic molecules

2. Moral Epistemology How do we know this is what morality is? As with anything – give reasons in favour Explains the nature of moral judgements Consistent with moral and social practise No appeal to weird non-natural or supernatural entities Investigate moral truths like other claims about the natural world

3. Moral Motivation How to respond to the amoralist: “why should I be moral?” Humean theory of motivation: motivation is belief plus desire Not possible to provide a motivation for anything without invoking agent-relative goal Example: what to say to someone who doesn’t care about reason or truth?

Response 1: A Reason for Action ‘We should be moral because if we are, more human desires will be fulfilled and there will be more human flourishing’ Amoralist: “So? Why should I care?” ‘Because if you did, more human desires will be fulfilled and there will be more human flourishing’ Perfectly adequate reason for any morally competent person

Part B: Morality From God

1. Moral Ontology Divine Command Theory: What is right is determined by God’s commandments Euthyphro Dilemma: It’s good because God commands it? So good is arbitrary God commands it because it’s good? So good is external to God Modified DCT: good because God commands it, but the commands stem from God’s eternal virtuous nature, so are not arbitrary

Problem: Defining Goodness What does it mean to say “God is good”? By DCT, “good” means “commanded by God because of his perfect nature” But then saying “God is good” is just saying “God is consistent with his own nature” This is an empty tautology – it doesn’t say anything about what ‘goodness’ actually is Totally uninformative account of the good

2. Moral Epistemology We can know that God is good because that is the nature of God To ask ‘is God good?’ is to misunderstand the concept of ‘God’ We can know what things are good by consulting his word (e.g. Bible)

Problem: Recognising Goodness How can we know if Jesus is good and worthy of worship? He declares it? Anyone can do that He is powerful? Might makes right We observe his goodness? Would need some prior idea of good to compare Theistic ethics has no tool determine if any being is righteous or worthy of worship

3. Moral Motivation How does “God commands it” motivate the amoralist? They can still say “So? Why should I care?” Even God provides no desire-independent reasons for action

Is Everything Permissible?