Why Be Moral? Introduction PHIL104 – 2009 Dan Turton

Basics Suppose that there are some obviously moral and immoral actions –I.e. believe in cultural relativism or moral absolutism Also suppose that there is no heaven and hell and no intervening God

More Basics Basically, assume that there is a morally right thing to do. In this section we are interested in the question: ‘Why should we do the morally right thing? –Against the background assumption that ‘we could benefit ourselves by not doing the morally right thing’

Bank Error in Your Favour $30,000 from an ATM with a receipt for $30 You leave the money in a safe place for 2 months Neither the bank nor Target have contacted you Do you keep the money? –Why? Why not?

Some Excuses The bank won’t notice –Neither would a supermarket ANZ has bad customer service and is not NZ-owned You will donate half of the $$ to charity You deserve it due to past hardships/wrongs –Bank error not in your favour

Next Time Read: –Plato: ‘The Ring of Gyges’ –Rachels: ‘Ethical Egoism’ Get ready to discuss: –How power corrupts –If anyone every really does anything for moral reasons

Why Be Moral? The Ring of Gygees & Rachels on Ethical Egoism PHIL104 – 2009 Dan Turton

Today Follows the Plato reading: –‘The Ring of Gyges’ Then follows the 1 st half of the Rachels reading: –Ethical Egoism He discusses and refutes 3 arguments in support of Ethical Egoism

Recap of the Basics Basically, assume that there is a morally right thing to do. In this section we are interested in the question: ‘Why should we do the morally right thing? –Against the background assumption that ‘we could benefit ourselves by not doing the morally right thing’

The Ring of Gygees PHIL104 – 2009 Dan Turton

The Ring of Gyges Like “The One Ring” in LOTR –Makes you invisible etc. A shepherd finds it inside a big horse with windows He uses it to commit adultery with the kings wife, kill the king and takes over as the new king

Glaucon on Giving Power to the Just 1)The only reason we don’t act unjustly is because we fear retribution 2)Therefore, a just (moral) and an unjust (immoral) person would both act unjustly if they had the Ring of Gyges c) Therefore we should be immoral if we can get away with it

Glaucon’s Defense of P1 1)The only reason we don’t act unjustly is because we fear retribution The nature of every organism is to desire “undue gain” –Similar to Psychological Egoism –E.g. dolphins & sparrows ‘pack rape’ –E.g. many birds ‘commit adultery’ The law and our peers force us to repress this desire

Psychological Egoism We have evolved so that everything we do (whether we realise it or not) is in the pursuit of self-interest - E.g. We saved the drowning child (or dog) because we want the benefits (power, sex, cooperation) of being a hero

How Would Socrates Reply? 1)The only reason we don’t act unjustly is because we fear retribution S: Truly just people would act morally because they love justice

Glaucon on the Path to Happiness 1)We have created ‘justice’ (conventional morality) only because we are afraid of suffering 2)The extremely unjust (immoral) person will be happier than the extremely just (moral) person c) Therefore, we should (prudentially) be immoral if we can get away with it

How Might Socrates Reply? S: Unjust people find it hard to live with themselves because they have to live with a bad person, which makes them unhappy

Important for the Exam What is Glaucon arguing for? How good are his arguments? Are there any non-prudential reasons to act morally?

Rachels on Ethical Egoism PHIL104 – 2009 Dan Turton

Is there a Duty to Help the Starving? 10m die from starvation and preventable diseases per year Each of us could save one for $10/w Do we have a duty to help the starving? … Perhaps… We have a duty to help others because “they are people who could be helped or harmed by us”

Rachels: Egoism Psychological Egoism: –We do always act to pursue only our own interests –Descriptive claim Ethical Egoism: –We should always act to pursue only our own interests –“Our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves” –Normative claim

Rachels: Ethical Egoism “Our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves… over the long run” Ethical egoists don’t need to avoid doing things for others Ethical egoists shouldn’t ‘just do whatever they want (man)’ –E.g. drug overdoses, smoke cigies –Because those things are not in their long- term interests

3 Arguments for Ethical Egoism 1)The argument that altruism is self- defeating 2)Ayn Rand’s argument 3)Ethical egoism as compatible with commonsense morality

Altruism is Self-Defeating 1) When we try to help others, we end up hurting them. E.g. –We know our own interests well, but not others’ interests. So when we help, we often hinder –Looking out for others robs them of their privacy –Giving “charity” demeans the recipient’s self-worth c) Therefore, we should all attend to only our own interests

The ‘Altruism is Self-Defeating’ Argument is Self- Defeating! 1)We ought to do whatever will best promote everyone’s interests 2)The best way to do that is for each of us to pursue only our own interests c) Therefore, each of us should pursue only our own interests

Ayn Rand’s Argument 1)Our life should be the most important thing to us… 2)The ethics of altruism does not value human life as it should 3)Ethical Egoism does value human life as it should c) Thus, EE is the best theory

Ethical Egoism: Some Strategies First two strategies were revisionist –Conventional morality (what we generally believe) is wrong Next one is reductionist –The principles of conventional morality can be reduced to (explained by) one underlying principle –Namely ‘self-interest’

Ethical Egoism is Compatible with Commonsense Morality Self-interest underpins all other principles in commonsense morality – e.g. The duty not to harm others –Avoid retribution or jail The duty not to lie –Reputation / need true information from others The duty to keep our promises –Ensure access to mutually beneficial relationships

Problems for ‘EE is Compatible with Commonsense Morality’ It doesn’t prove enough –We can still imagine times when harming others will benefit us –Thus, the duty ‘not to harm’ cannot be reduced to self-interest It ignores the possibility of other reasons –Giving $ to the poor could at least partially be to prevent them from starving

Next Time Read: –Singer: ‘Why Act Morally?’ Get ready to discuss: –Rachels’ 3 reasons why EE might be a bad moral theory –Why acting immorally is usually a stupid (anti-prudential) thing to do –Summary of ‘Why Be Moral?’

Why Be Moral? Rachels & Singer PHIL104 – 2009 Dan Turton

Why Even Discuss Those Egoisms? Psychological Egoism: –We do always act to pursue only our own interests –Would mean that we can’t be ‘moral’ Ethical Egoism: –We should always act to pursue only our own interests –Would mean that we shouldn’t be ‘moral’ ‘Moral’ means being altruistic –Acting to further the interests of others

3 Arguments for Ethical Egoism 1)The argument that altruism is self- defeating - Self-defeating - Had counter-examples 2)Ayn Rand’s argument - False dichotomy - Had counter-examples 3)Ethical egoism as compatible with commonsense morality - OK, but had counter examples

Today Follows the 2 nd half of the Rachels reading: –Ethical Egoism He discusses 3 arguments in support of Ethical Egoism Follows the Singer reading: –Why Be Moral? A summary

Why Might Ethical Egoism be Wrong? It endorses wickedness e.g. –Pharmacist waters down cancer drugs to increase profit margin –Nurse rapes unconscious patients –Paramedic gives water instead of morphine, then sells it –Parents feed their baby acid for fake lawsuit –Neighbour kidnaps and abuses girl in a bomb- shelter This approach begs the question

3 Arguments against Ethical Egoism 1)The argument that ethical egoism cannot handle conflicts of interest 2)The argument that ethical egoism is logically inconsistent 3)The argument that ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary

EE Cannot Handle Conflicts of Interest 1)Moral theories should solve problems of conflict of interests 2)EE cannot solve these problems, it only exacerbates them E.g. Obama & the Crips vs. McCain and the Bloods c) Therefore, EE is a bad moral theory

EE is Logically Inconsistent 1)Apply EE to Obama/McCain e.g. 2)The result is that they both have a duty to prevent the other from doing their duty 3)But, it’s morally wrong to prevent someone form doing their duty 4)Thus, EE leads to their actions being both morally wrong and right c) Thus, EE leads to contradictions

EE is Unacceptably Arbitrary 1 Arbitrary moral views make distinctions between groups without having a good reason to do so. E.g. –Racism The difference in treatment is not based on a relevant actual difference between the groups Therefore, arbitrary moral views are inconsistent

EE is Unacceptably Arbitrary 2 1)EE divides the world into ‘I’ and ‘everyone else’ 2)EE prescribes that we treat ‘everyone else’ differently to how we treat ourselves 3)There is no relevant difference between ‘I’ and ‘everyone else’ that warrants the difference in treatment c) Thus, EE is arbitrary EE says to treat the interests of others with no respect whatsoever and our own with utmost respect

Rachels’ Conclusion “We should care about the interests of other people for the same reason we care about our own interests; for their needs and desires are comparable to our own” If starving, would we need aid? If our need for food should be met, then so should theirs. Some can help and some can’t – which group are you in?

Singer on ‘Why Act Moral?’ PHIL104 – 2009 Dan Turton

Why Act Morally? Singer: What prudential reasons are there to act morally? Can it be shown that living ethically will lead to happiness? –That ethics and self-interest coincide?

Moral Emotions 1 Most people have benevolent feelings towards others –Like sympathy for the starving Most people feel guilty when they do ‘immoral’ acts –Like feeling bad for reading your sister’s diary –Or flirting with old ladies

Moral Emotions 2 These emotions mean: –Doing good makes us feel good –Doing bad makes us feel bad Given the extent of suffering, why not suppress these sympathetic inclinations? It’s hard to do – repeated exposure might work but would be very unpleasant

The Problem of Psychopaths Psychopaths are often happy, but are indifferent to the welfare of others –No empathy, guilt, shame If there was a fix, it’s not clear that the smart ones (who are unlikely to be caught) would or should want it Smart psychopaths might show that morality is not required for happiness

But are Psychopaths Happy? They are persuasive liars Even if they are honest about being happy, their interpretation of happiness might be different to ours Cleckley: A psycho’s life is like a kid at a philosophy lecture –They can’t appreciate it, they get bored, and they misbehave –Psychos don’t appreciate the most important things in life

Does Life Have Meaning? We can’t criticise the psycho’s meaningless life if our lives are also meaningless Religious purpose for life Atheistic meaningful lives

Singer Evaluates the Meaningfulness A psychopath’s only hope for a meaningful life is to pursue happiness The paradox of happiness Ethical Egoists pursue their own interests Normal lives get happiness in the pursuit of something bigger – an ethical life

Singer’s Conclusion It’s not irrational to want to be a smart psychopath Immoral acts are not necessarily irrational We’ll always need laws and police to decrease incentives to be immoral But, smart people should see that our best shot at a meaningful life is by pursuing an ethical life

Summary of ‘Why Be Moral (Altruistic)?’ Can we actually be altruistic? –Psychological egoism says ‘no’ Are there good philosophical reasons for being altruistic? –Ethical egoism says ‘no’ –Rachels: ‘Yes’, because ethical egoism (being immoral) is arbitrary Are there good prudential reasons for being altruistic? –Ethical egoism says ‘sometimes’ –Singer: ‘Yes’, the most meaningful life we can get is the ethical one