Lecture 1
Meta, normative and applied ethics
Applied ethics = concrete rules based on theories
Examples: rules in classroom, rules in court, DSM-5, code of conduct
Normative ethics = framework of what is expected of people, what’s considered
normal
Natural law theory: 2 views:
o Nature is cruel and not to be desired
o Nature can be a helpful guide
Meta-ethics: what is morality? What is good?
Eutyphro dilemma (plato): how does God know what’s wrong and right?
Are things wrong/right because God commands them? Or does God
command these rules because they are right?
o First case: God can demand anything, even cruel things
o Second case: rules exist outside of God, goodness is out there for us
to discover too
Moral reasoning
- Scientific toolbox
o Thought experiments (like the eutyphro dilemma)
o Informal logic (like comparing sexual behavior in animals – an
analogy)
o Formal logic
o Special moral arguments (like universalization: what if everybody
would do that, fact-value distinction
o Netflix
Case study- ADHD
ADHD – a very rich case study for ethics
- Relates both to care and education
- Many moral concerns
o Long term effects of medication
o Inclusion/exclusion in education
o Equality (in education)
o Purpose of education (teaching maths/ language or socialisation in a
broader term)
Conclusion
- You cannot be definite about individual characteristics such as brain size of
individuals based on group differences. This would be an ecological fallacy
(important term!!)
- Ecological fallacy =
, - Differences are not disorders, even if many/all with ADHD classification
would have smaller brains, that does not mean they have a disorder (fact-
value distinction)
- Both arguments mean it is logically wrong to say ADHD is a brain disorder
Epistemological violence (injustice): when empirical data are interpreted as
showing the inferiority of or problematizes the other, even when data allow for
equally viable alternative interpretations
Utilitarianism form of normative ethics
- How many people are effected by something, train tracks example
- Three fundamental convictions
o Morality requires everyone to be treated equally
o Pleasure is the ultimate good
Can be specifically calculated following 7 criteria of the
felicific calculus:
1. Duration: how long it lasts
2. Intensity: how intense is it?
3. Propinquity: how near/remote?
4. Extent: how widely it covers
5. Certainty: how probable is it?
6. Purity: how free from pain is it?
7. Fecundity: lead to further pleasure?
o Morality should be based on firm principles
Asceticism: practice of self-denial as a measure of personal
and especially spiritual discipline (merriam webster)
o Examples of utilitarian thinking
Cost-benefit analysis
Democracy
Interrogation/torture
Covid pandemic
ADHD why is it a problem?
- Difficult in school, other people may find it annoying and it is hard for the
individual
- Utilitarian point of view on education
o Greatest happiness for the greatest number
Current solution HF Other solution HF
30 children in a +- 15 children in a +
class class
1 teacher p. 30 +- 2 teachers p. +
30
Books are +- Many means for +
central to transfer of
transfer of knowledge
knowledge
Taxpayer +- Taxpayer -----
,Take home meassage
- Meta/normative/applied ethics
- Tools like the use of informal logic, thought experiments, case studies
- The eutyphro dilemma
- Natural law theory/utilitarianism as example of normative ethics
- The importance of reasoning in relation to morality
- Epistemic injustice
Literature week 1:
An introduction to moral philosophy
Chapter 1: Moral philosophy and moral reasoning
The point of moral philosophy
Moral philosophy = thinking and reflecting about morality
Morality gets taught to us from birth, moral philosophy comes later if at all.
Greek philosophers differed on whether young people were ready to study moral
philosophy.
Developing a moral outlook
Moral philosophy, while theoretical, is ultimately a practical subject. It helps
individuals develop their own moral perspective. It sharpens one’s understanding
of what matters morally, guides how to reason and feel about ethical issues, and
clarifies relationships with others, animals, and the environment. It also helps in
identifying life goals and using one’s talents meaningfully. While some
philosophers offer specific advice, the most impactful ones inspire us to see the
world and our moral role in it more clearly.
The nature of moral philosophy
Moral philosophy = the practice of reflecting philosophically on morality
Morality and etiquette are often confused with each other, because not following
etiquette can seem disrespectful.
Meta-ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics
Meta-ethics asks questions about the nature and existence of value and our
knowledge of it. Examples of meta-ethical questions include the following: Are
values objective? How do we know what things or actions are good?
Normative ethics asks questions about what we should do and how we should
live. Is there a set of moral principles that I should follow or perhaps some other
decision procedure for telling right from wrong?
Applied ethics asks questions about specific moral problems, such as whether
abortion or terrorism are sometimes permissible, or whether it was right to use
the atomic bomb in the Second World War. Normative theories are often used to
, answer these questions, although different normative theories may give different
answers.
Moral reasoning
There’s no one right way to do moral philosophy — even how to do it is a topic of
debate. Still, there are some common ways of thinking and arguing that come up
often. These aren’t strict rules, since moral philosophy is always changing. The
book looks at four main methods: logical principles of reasoning that apply to all
subject matters; informal techniques of argument that also apply to all subject
areas; thought experiments and moral intuitions; and specific methodological
devices used in moral philosophy.
- Formal logic: validity, soundness, equivocation, circularity
o Formal logic is a method of argument, using deduction, in which
conclusions are derived from premises according to a set of logical
rules.
o A valid argument is one where, if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
o But for an argument to be sound, the premises also need to be true.
o In real life it is often more complicated because of implied premises:
A premise that is not explicitly stated in an argument, but it is
assumed as part of the background and needs to be stated in order
for the argument to be valid.
o Logical consistency: Two or more beliefs are logically consistent if it
is possible for them to be true at the same time.
o In real life arguments are often complex, but it can help constructing
the logical form: An argument in ordinary speech can often be
reconstructed as a step-by-step logical argument, thereby revealing
its logical form.
o Logical traps:
Equivocation: The same word has different meanings in
different premises
Circular argument (also known as begging the question) :
although the conclusion validly follows from the premises, the
premises already assume the truth of the conclusion.
- Informal logic: analogy, induction, inference to the best explanation
o There are other ways to find support for a conclusion.
Analogy: A comparison between two areas of knowledge or
investigation, made in order to bring insight to one area by
comparing it to another.
Induction: Arguing for a theory on the basis that it provides
the best explanation of some observed phenomenon. For
example, it is generally believed that the best explanation of
the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is that
smoking causes lung cancer, even though other possible
explanations are also available.
Meta, normative and applied ethics
Applied ethics = concrete rules based on theories
Examples: rules in classroom, rules in court, DSM-5, code of conduct
Normative ethics = framework of what is expected of people, what’s considered
normal
Natural law theory: 2 views:
o Nature is cruel and not to be desired
o Nature can be a helpful guide
Meta-ethics: what is morality? What is good?
Eutyphro dilemma (plato): how does God know what’s wrong and right?
Are things wrong/right because God commands them? Or does God
command these rules because they are right?
o First case: God can demand anything, even cruel things
o Second case: rules exist outside of God, goodness is out there for us
to discover too
Moral reasoning
- Scientific toolbox
o Thought experiments (like the eutyphro dilemma)
o Informal logic (like comparing sexual behavior in animals – an
analogy)
o Formal logic
o Special moral arguments (like universalization: what if everybody
would do that, fact-value distinction
o Netflix
Case study- ADHD
ADHD – a very rich case study for ethics
- Relates both to care and education
- Many moral concerns
o Long term effects of medication
o Inclusion/exclusion in education
o Equality (in education)
o Purpose of education (teaching maths/ language or socialisation in a
broader term)
Conclusion
- You cannot be definite about individual characteristics such as brain size of
individuals based on group differences. This would be an ecological fallacy
(important term!!)
- Ecological fallacy =
, - Differences are not disorders, even if many/all with ADHD classification
would have smaller brains, that does not mean they have a disorder (fact-
value distinction)
- Both arguments mean it is logically wrong to say ADHD is a brain disorder
Epistemological violence (injustice): when empirical data are interpreted as
showing the inferiority of or problematizes the other, even when data allow for
equally viable alternative interpretations
Utilitarianism form of normative ethics
- How many people are effected by something, train tracks example
- Three fundamental convictions
o Morality requires everyone to be treated equally
o Pleasure is the ultimate good
Can be specifically calculated following 7 criteria of the
felicific calculus:
1. Duration: how long it lasts
2. Intensity: how intense is it?
3. Propinquity: how near/remote?
4. Extent: how widely it covers
5. Certainty: how probable is it?
6. Purity: how free from pain is it?
7. Fecundity: lead to further pleasure?
o Morality should be based on firm principles
Asceticism: practice of self-denial as a measure of personal
and especially spiritual discipline (merriam webster)
o Examples of utilitarian thinking
Cost-benefit analysis
Democracy
Interrogation/torture
Covid pandemic
ADHD why is it a problem?
- Difficult in school, other people may find it annoying and it is hard for the
individual
- Utilitarian point of view on education
o Greatest happiness for the greatest number
Current solution HF Other solution HF
30 children in a +- 15 children in a +
class class
1 teacher p. 30 +- 2 teachers p. +
30
Books are +- Many means for +
central to transfer of
transfer of knowledge
knowledge
Taxpayer +- Taxpayer -----
,Take home meassage
- Meta/normative/applied ethics
- Tools like the use of informal logic, thought experiments, case studies
- The eutyphro dilemma
- Natural law theory/utilitarianism as example of normative ethics
- The importance of reasoning in relation to morality
- Epistemic injustice
Literature week 1:
An introduction to moral philosophy
Chapter 1: Moral philosophy and moral reasoning
The point of moral philosophy
Moral philosophy = thinking and reflecting about morality
Morality gets taught to us from birth, moral philosophy comes later if at all.
Greek philosophers differed on whether young people were ready to study moral
philosophy.
Developing a moral outlook
Moral philosophy, while theoretical, is ultimately a practical subject. It helps
individuals develop their own moral perspective. It sharpens one’s understanding
of what matters morally, guides how to reason and feel about ethical issues, and
clarifies relationships with others, animals, and the environment. It also helps in
identifying life goals and using one’s talents meaningfully. While some
philosophers offer specific advice, the most impactful ones inspire us to see the
world and our moral role in it more clearly.
The nature of moral philosophy
Moral philosophy = the practice of reflecting philosophically on morality
Morality and etiquette are often confused with each other, because not following
etiquette can seem disrespectful.
Meta-ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics
Meta-ethics asks questions about the nature and existence of value and our
knowledge of it. Examples of meta-ethical questions include the following: Are
values objective? How do we know what things or actions are good?
Normative ethics asks questions about what we should do and how we should
live. Is there a set of moral principles that I should follow or perhaps some other
decision procedure for telling right from wrong?
Applied ethics asks questions about specific moral problems, such as whether
abortion or terrorism are sometimes permissible, or whether it was right to use
the atomic bomb in the Second World War. Normative theories are often used to
, answer these questions, although different normative theories may give different
answers.
Moral reasoning
There’s no one right way to do moral philosophy — even how to do it is a topic of
debate. Still, there are some common ways of thinking and arguing that come up
often. These aren’t strict rules, since moral philosophy is always changing. The
book looks at four main methods: logical principles of reasoning that apply to all
subject matters; informal techniques of argument that also apply to all subject
areas; thought experiments and moral intuitions; and specific methodological
devices used in moral philosophy.
- Formal logic: validity, soundness, equivocation, circularity
o Formal logic is a method of argument, using deduction, in which
conclusions are derived from premises according to a set of logical
rules.
o A valid argument is one where, if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
o But for an argument to be sound, the premises also need to be true.
o In real life it is often more complicated because of implied premises:
A premise that is not explicitly stated in an argument, but it is
assumed as part of the background and needs to be stated in order
for the argument to be valid.
o Logical consistency: Two or more beliefs are logically consistent if it
is possible for them to be true at the same time.
o In real life arguments are often complex, but it can help constructing
the logical form: An argument in ordinary speech can often be
reconstructed as a step-by-step logical argument, thereby revealing
its logical form.
o Logical traps:
Equivocation: The same word has different meanings in
different premises
Circular argument (also known as begging the question) :
although the conclusion validly follows from the premises, the
premises already assume the truth of the conclusion.
- Informal logic: analogy, induction, inference to the best explanation
o There are other ways to find support for a conclusion.
Analogy: A comparison between two areas of knowledge or
investigation, made in order to bring insight to one area by
comparing it to another.
Induction: Arguing for a theory on the basis that it provides
the best explanation of some observed phenomenon. For
example, it is generally believed that the best explanation of
the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is that
smoking causes lung cancer, even though other possible
explanations are also available.
