ASSIGNMENT ATTACHED
Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? RUSS SHAFER-LANDAU 4 CHAPTER ONE THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Here's a line I often hear: goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If I think something is good, it is. If you think it's bad, it is. Personal opinion is the measure of morality. To suppose that there are moral standards independent of such opinion--well, that's just wishful thinking, or an expression of arrogance. Clearly, morality is something that we made for ourselves. Others have come to different conclusions about how to live their lives. Who are we to say that they are mistaken? Perhaps you feel the force of these thoughts. They've gained a lot of credence in the last half century. Despite their popularity, I think that they're fundamentally mistaken. I think, in other words, that some things are simply immoral, without qualification. Not because I say so. Not because my country says so. Not because anyone says so. They just are wrong, period. That may sound like retrograde stuff. It certainly is an old-fashioned view. Yet most people, throughout most of human history, have found this a completely plausible position. Were they just unsophisticated? What do we know that they didn't, that could account for why so many nowadays regard morality as a kind of make-believe, or as exclusively a matter of personal or social choice? There are a variety of factors that might do the explaining. Whether they in fact justify such a skeptical attitude is of course quite another thing. There is first of all the loss of faith in traditional authority figures. Their edicts once served as moral bedrock for their followers. But we are nowadays far more willing to question the clergy, to doubt their spiritual integrity and to suspect their moral wisdom. And we've scrutinized our secular leaders within an inch of their lives. It hasn't done much to elevate their moral status. There is also the greater exposure to other cultures, whose practices are incompatible with our own. It is harder to think of one's way of life as the only way, or the only natural way, when so many functioning, intelligent societies are organized along different principles. Add to this the cautionary tale of our century's fanatics, whose certitude has cost tens of millions their lives. These people were convinced that theirs was the side of Good, that they had a monopoly on the Truth. Wouldn't a little self-doubt have been in order? If we have to choose between the hesitations of those who have their moral doubts, and the fanaticism of those who don't, then perhaps a bit of skepticism isn't such a bad idea after all. There are also specifically philosophical sources of moral skepticism. If good and evil really exist, then why is there so much disagreement about them? Why isn’t there a widely accepted account of how to make moral discoveries? Moreover, if there are correct standards of good and evil, doesn't that license dogmatism and intolerance? Yet if these are the price of good and evil, maybe we do better to abandon such notions. And doesn't the existence of good and evil require the existence of God? But what evidence is there that God exists? Doesn't the amount and degree of sorrow in the world, not to mention the scientific unverifiability of a divine being, give us excellent reason to doubt God's existence? Taken together, these considerations have done a good deal to convince people to adopt a skeptical attitude towards moral claims. Without an answer to these (and other) worries, too many of us are likely to find ourselves acting and thinking inconsistently. Though firm in our 5 conviction of a terrorist's depravity, we might, in other contexts, find ourselves claiming that our ethical views are merely our opinion, true (if at all) only relative to the culture we live in. The implication of this last thought is that those who disagree with us need not be making any error. When we think about concrete examples, of the sort that we were forced to contemplate on September 11th, that kind of view can seem hollow and artificial. But the concerns that bring so many of us over the skeptic's side have yet to be dispelled. Until they are, we are likely to be morally schizophrenic: full of outrage at moments, and at other times just as full of reservations about the status of our moral condemnations. My aim in this book is to display, and to undermine, the philosophical grounds for the widespread doubts about morality that have gripped so many of us. This aim shouldn’t be confused with another one, also a central subject matter in ethics. I won't be selling you a story about what sorts of things are good and evil. I won't try to encourage you to praise benevolence and condemn torture. I assume you already do that, and don't need any convincing on that score. Rather than try to construct a list of moral principles that will distinguish good from evil, I want to ask whether any such list might possibly be true. You have your views about good and evil, and I mine. Are these the sorts of things that can be true in the first place? Could it be that both of our views are true, even though, at some places, they are incompatible with one another? Are they just true for me, or true for you? What could it mean to say such a thing? In asking these questions, we are trying to decide on the status of ethical claims. We are not seeking to enumerate the things that are good and evil. Neither are we trying to spell out the content of moral principles: actions are right provided that _________; motives are good just in case _________. Instead, we are examining the moral principles themselves. Are they capable of being true? If so, what makes them true? Where do they come from? Can we ever know which moral principles are true and which false? How is that possible (if it is)? What sort of authority does morality have over us? No headlines here. The ethical matters that command attention typically involve efforts to decide what is actually right and wrong. The ethical issues that grab the public's fancy involve such things as the morality of euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc. Yet everyone does have views about morality's status. People not only take a stand on whether, for instance, doctors may impart lethal injections to terminally ill patients, but also on whether such a stand can be true. And these latter views count. They are important in their own right. But they also have very significant implications. Consider: those who believe that theirs is the side of Good, and that others are therefore Evil, may leverage such a view into one that allows the very worst sorts of horrors. We read about such people in our newspapers and history books, and see the fruits of their convictions in the body counts on the evening news. Such individuals justify their actions, to themselves and others, partly on the basis of their belief in a moral truth not of their own making. They seek moral authority in something greater than human choice, and take their confidence in having found it to terrible extremes. It matters, too, that others are far more skeptical about the status of moral claims. If ethics is only a human construct, then what's to stand in the way of my constructing things so that only members of my family, sex, religion, or race get preferential treatment? If I'm free to invent a morality that suits my tastes, then watch out--some have a taste for blood, others for a social 6 order in which they and their kind get to lord it over all the rest. Of course, the view that good and evil exist only as human creations has also been prompted by just the opposite impulse, that of toleration. Here's the idea: if tolerance is as important as we think it is, then all ways of life are morally on a par with one another. And tolerance is, indeed, a very great value--if history has taught us anything, it is the need to stay the hand that would subordinate others just because of their differences. But why be tolerant of others if you've got it right and they're in the wrong? The value of tolerance is unimpeachable, but it also presupposes the fundamental equality of all moral views. If you value tolerance, you should reject the idea that there is a best or uniquely true morality. Whether such a stand is correct or not, it clearly does describe an attitude of the first importance, one that is based very largely on a view about the status of our moral claims. As it happens, this defense of tolerance, as well as the moral crusader's willingness to crush his opponents, is a product of confused thinking. Those who embrace the possibility of an objectively true morality are wrong to suppose that this licenses the domination or killing of dissenters. And those who value tolerance are mistaken to seek its support in moral relativism and associated doctrines. Part of my aim in these pages is to reveal the many popular misconceptions in this territory, and to display the real implications of our views about the status of morality. If I am right, then once we see such consequences clearly, we will be far less inclined to think of morality as a product of human invention. Certain things are right, and others wrong; some good, some evil; and we don't have the final say on what they are. There are moral standards not of our own making. Whatever happened to good and evil? They never went away. We just thought they did. Activity #8 - Metaethics Hi, This week's online activity is a short reading from an introductory text called What Ever Happened to Good and Evil by Russ Schaefer-Landau. Landau - First chapters 2019.pdf Landau - First chapters 2019.pdf - Alternative Formats However, the terminology he uses in the text differs a bit form the terminology I've used in class and in the handout. So below is a guide to (hopefully) resolve any confusion. The column on the left lists the terms I used in class. The middle column is the corresponding term that Landau uses in the reading, and the last column gives the meaning of the term(s). For your assignment, please write a ½ to 1 page statement about which of the meta-ethical views listed below you find most convincing and why. The assignment is due by 3pm November 18th - Term used in class / in the handout Term in the assigned reading Meaning Moral objectivism Ethical objectivism Moral truths (that is, truths about right and wrong – for