PHILOSOPHY in LITERATURE SPRING 2016

A Brief Overview of Major Theories in Moral Philosophy Ethical Relativism: There are no universal moral values. Each culture is morally correct in its own way. Psychological Egoism: Everybody is always acting from selfish motives; unselfishness is impossible. Ethical Egoism: Everybody should always be selfish. Unselfishness is possible, but foolish. Altruism: Everybody should always be unselfish and think of other people first. Utilitarianism: We should all try to maximize happiness and limit misery for as many as possible, even animals. Kantian Deontology: We should always do what is right, according to the principle, Could we want our action to become a universal moral law for everyone to follow?

The Adversarial Method Method used in debates, including philosophical debates. Looking for the weak points in a theory, to either improve the theory, or dismiss it The weak points can be factual and/or logical Paul Ricoeur’s advice: Don’t just use the adversarial method to dismiss a theory. Listen and learn from the theory, too. So: pros and cons of the major ethical theories coming up!

ETHICAL RELATIVISM Theory: Values are unique to their culture. Each culture is morally correct in its own way. Major proponent: Anthropologist Ruth Benedict Pro: Allows for a live-and-let-live attitude between cultures while respecting the values of ones own culture Cons: Hopelessly confused about the boundaries of “cultures” Can’t account for righteous moral indignation Doesn’t consider the fact that all cultures may have common moral roots

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM Theory: Everybody is always acting from selfish motives; unselfishness is impossible. Major proponent: Thomas Hobbes Pro: Has a neat explanation for everything! Cons: Is counter-intuitive: sometimes actions seem very unselfish Is not logical: if all acts are selfish, aren’t some acts more selfish than others? And if some acts are only selfish in the smallest possible way, why would we even call them selfish? Is apparently false, according to evolutionary psychology: We are not fundamentally selfish, but attuned to the social needs of our group.

ETHICAL EGOISM Theory: Everybody should always be selfish. Unselfishness is possible, but foolish. Major proponents: Ayn Rand, Thomas Hobbes Pro: Makes looking after oneself a moral duty, so it liberates from bad conscience. Cons: Seems unfeeling and obnoxious! May be counterproductive: If everybody just looks after themselves, there will be fierce competition

ALTRUISM Theory: Everybody should always be unselfish and think of other people first. Major proponent: Various religions; Emmanuel Levinas Pro: An antidote to Ethical Egoism! Other people matter. Cons: Is counter-intuitive: should other people really matter more than yourself? Only works if we can count on other people being willing to help us, too: reciprocal altruism.

UTILITARIANISM Theory: We should all try to maximize happiness and limit misery for as many as possible, including animals. Major proponents: Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer Pros: Easy, basic premise: preventing suffering. Includes everyone’s happiness, including our own. Is very intuitive. We like the idea of trying to make as many people happy as possible. We like the idea of animals being part of our moral universe Cons: If a majority is made happy, then there will b e a minority that will be unhappy. The few can legitimately be sacrificed for the many, regardless of the cause. There is no concept of right and wrong, except for what relates to overall happiness.

KANT’S DEONTOLOGY Theory: (1) We should always do what is right, according to the principle, Could we want our action to become a universal moral law for everyone to follow? (“The Categorical Imperative”) (2) We should always show other human beings with respect: “Always treat yourself and others as an end-in-themselves, never merely as means” Major proponent: Immanuel Kant Pros: One can always figure out what is the right thing to do. No shades of grey. Based on the notion that all people are rational and deserve respect. Cons: Rigid, allows for no exceptions. Distinguishes between “persons” and “things.” Persons can think, things cannot. And animals are “things.”

Applying Moral Theory to Literature/Fiction 1. We can look at whether a work of fiction (novel, short- story, play, narrative videogame, television show, or movie) overall promotes a certain value theory = the authors/producers want their work to reflect a certain moral stance. The story has a “message.” 2. We can look at whether various moral theories are reflected in different characters in the story, and which characters are considered the “good guys” and which ones the “bad guys.” The “good guys” represent the moral values of the story. It doesn’t have to have a “message,” but can explore different views and options.

Some Thinkers in Favor of Blending Fiction and Philosophy: Aristotle, philosopher (4 th century B.C.E.) Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (19 th century) Jean-Paul Sartre, philosopher and novelist (20 th century) Simone de Beauvoir, philosopher and novelist(20 th century) Albert Camus, novelist and philosopher (20 th century) Ayn Rand, philosopher and novelist (20 th century) Iris Murdoch, novelist (20 th century) John Steinbeck, novelist and philosopher (20 th century) Jorge Luis Borges, novelist (20 th century) Paul Ricoeur, philosopher (20 th century) Charles Johnson, philosopher and novelist (today) Robert Pippin, philosopher (today) Martha Nussbaum, philosopher(today)