Philosophy of Science and Ethics
Introduction:
- If P then Q, (Socrates is human, Socrates is mortal)
- P (Socrates is mortal)
- Conclusion: therefore Q (Therefore, Socrates is human) = modus pones
Can also be with ‘not Q’. = modus tollens
An argument can be valid, but the conclusion can be false. So most obviously is that one
premise is wrong. Only the argument can be sound if the premises are true, and the
argument is valid.
Ethics and morality:
Ethics = Concerns about how we ought to live. E.g. what kinds of lives are valuable and
worthwhile.
Morality = Part of ethics. Concerns about what we owe others. What are we obligated to
others? From the perspective of morality. E.g. I am obligated to devote a certain percentage
of my income to rescuing those in dire need.
Philosophy study of ethics is a normative area of inquiry, it's on what ought to be the case,
not what is the case.
Normative statements and non-normative statements:
Normative statements = Express attitudes about what ought to be the case. what is right or
wrong. E.g. intentionally killing an innocent person is wrong.
Non-normative statements = Do not express attitudes about what ought to be the case,
often they depict what is the case. E.g. in 2020, there were 2675 murder cases in the
Netherlands.
Lecture 1: Singer, 1972, Famine
Part 1: Duties of rescue.
Premise 1 = Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are very bad
(normative claim).
Premise 2 = The duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
Premise 3 = It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant
(non-normative claim).
Conclusion 1 = We ought, morally, to do that which is in our power to prevent suffering and
death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care (normative claim).
How can you support your premises?
- Appeals to scientific or observational evidence
- Appeals to intuitions
- An entirely separate argument is often called a supporting argument.
,Support for premise 2: The child in the pond.
Premise 2 = The duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
>> Singer’s support: Appeals to our intuitions about a case.
What is moral significance:
>> Singer: “By without sacrificing anything of… moral importance” I mean without causing
anything else bad to happen or doing something that is wrong in itself or failing to promote
some moral good.”
So, Singer thinks that expensive clothes and fancy cars are not morally significant.
Singer’s test for moral significance: If you could save the drowning child by sacrificing the
thing in question (clothes), would it be wrong for you NOT to save the child?
Effective Altruism group = give your money to who needs it, instead of using it yourself on
material things that are not needed for living. > luxury good vs people who need it.
Objection 1: It is not in our power to help those in need
Premise 3 = It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant
(non-normative claim).
Objection = In fact, it is not in our power to do this, especially since so many people are
suffering abroad.
>> Singers reply: That is not true. There are organisations that prove in-depth reporting on
different charities that are quite effective at preventing suffering and death all over the
globe.
Ø But are the organisations good?...
Objection 2: Proximity
Premise 2 = the duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
Objection = Don’t we have obligation to people near us that outweigh our obligations to
other far away?
>> Singers reply: no if what matters is preventing harm to people, and all people are morally
equal, then their location does not matter, morally.
Objection 3: Other people aren’t doing anything
Premise 2 = the duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
Objection: This principle does not apply when lots of other people are able but does not
prevent something bad from happening. And lots of people aren’t doing anything to fulfil
their duties of rescue.
>> Singer reply: This can make no real difference to our moral obligations. E.g. there were a
lot of people nearby the drowning child, and no one is saving him. Wouldn’t you still have
the moral obligation to save the child?
, Moral categories:
Meaning Example
Permissible It is permissible to do X if and only it is My decision to play with the dog is
not wrong to preform action X. permissible.
Obligatory An individual had an obligation or duty I have a moral obligation to not
to do X if and only if it’s impermissible hurt other people, to keep my
to not do X. promise, and not steal or cheat.
Supererogatory An action X is supererogatory if and Imagine I run into a burning
only if doing X involves doing more than building and rescue 10 people
is morally required even though this means I will
almost certainly die. This is
supererogatory.
Part 2: We should radically revise our mora categories
Conclusion 1 = We ought, morally, to do that which is in our power to prevent suffering and
death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care (normative claim).
Premise 4 = The traditional moral distinction between duty and supererogation implies that
we are not morally required to do that which is in our power to prevent suffering and death
from lack of food, shelter and medical care.
Premise 5 = We ought to reject distinctions that imply that we are not morally required to
do that which we are morally required to do.
Conclusion 2 = We ought to reject the traditional mora distinction between duty and
supererogation.
The traditional view on morality and Singer’s view
Obligations Supererogation
Traditional Don’t hurt others, don’t cheat or Sacrificing your life to save other people,
steal, keep promises and rescue the instead of spending money on luxury
drowning child goods, give it to people in need
Singer’s Instead of spending money on Sacrificing your life to save other people.
luxury goods, give it to people in
need, don’t hurt others, don’t cheat
or steal, keep promises and rescue
the drowning child
Objection 4: This is too revisionary
Objection = This is a radical revision to our ordinary understanding of morality. It means that
we have far more stringent moral obligations than people ordinarily think or accept.
>> Singer: That is exactly the point. We need to change society's view about morality so that
it aligns with the actual requirements of morality.
Moral requirements >> Society’s view = good
Society’s views >> Moral requirements = wrong
Introduction:
- If P then Q, (Socrates is human, Socrates is mortal)
- P (Socrates is mortal)
- Conclusion: therefore Q (Therefore, Socrates is human) = modus pones
Can also be with ‘not Q’. = modus tollens
An argument can be valid, but the conclusion can be false. So most obviously is that one
premise is wrong. Only the argument can be sound if the premises are true, and the
argument is valid.
Ethics and morality:
Ethics = Concerns about how we ought to live. E.g. what kinds of lives are valuable and
worthwhile.
Morality = Part of ethics. Concerns about what we owe others. What are we obligated to
others? From the perspective of morality. E.g. I am obligated to devote a certain percentage
of my income to rescuing those in dire need.
Philosophy study of ethics is a normative area of inquiry, it's on what ought to be the case,
not what is the case.
Normative statements and non-normative statements:
Normative statements = Express attitudes about what ought to be the case. what is right or
wrong. E.g. intentionally killing an innocent person is wrong.
Non-normative statements = Do not express attitudes about what ought to be the case,
often they depict what is the case. E.g. in 2020, there were 2675 murder cases in the
Netherlands.
Lecture 1: Singer, 1972, Famine
Part 1: Duties of rescue.
Premise 1 = Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are very bad
(normative claim).
Premise 2 = The duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
Premise 3 = It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant
(non-normative claim).
Conclusion 1 = We ought, morally, to do that which is in our power to prevent suffering and
death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care (normative claim).
How can you support your premises?
- Appeals to scientific or observational evidence
- Appeals to intuitions
- An entirely separate argument is often called a supporting argument.
,Support for premise 2: The child in the pond.
Premise 2 = The duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
>> Singer’s support: Appeals to our intuitions about a case.
What is moral significance:
>> Singer: “By without sacrificing anything of… moral importance” I mean without causing
anything else bad to happen or doing something that is wrong in itself or failing to promote
some moral good.”
So, Singer thinks that expensive clothes and fancy cars are not morally significant.
Singer’s test for moral significance: If you could save the drowning child by sacrificing the
thing in question (clothes), would it be wrong for you NOT to save the child?
Effective Altruism group = give your money to who needs it, instead of using it yourself on
material things that are not needed for living. > luxury good vs people who need it.
Objection 1: It is not in our power to help those in need
Premise 3 = It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant
(non-normative claim).
Objection = In fact, it is not in our power to do this, especially since so many people are
suffering abroad.
>> Singers reply: That is not true. There are organisations that prove in-depth reporting on
different charities that are quite effective at preventing suffering and death all over the
globe.
Ø But are the organisations good?...
Objection 2: Proximity
Premise 2 = the duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
Objection = Don’t we have obligation to people near us that outweigh our obligations to
other far away?
>> Singers reply: no if what matters is preventing harm to people, and all people are morally
equal, then their location does not matter, morally.
Objection 3: Other people aren’t doing anything
Premise 2 = the duty of rescue: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from
happening without sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought morally to do it
(normative claim).
Objection: This principle does not apply when lots of other people are able but does not
prevent something bad from happening. And lots of people aren’t doing anything to fulfil
their duties of rescue.
>> Singer reply: This can make no real difference to our moral obligations. E.g. there were a
lot of people nearby the drowning child, and no one is saving him. Wouldn’t you still have
the moral obligation to save the child?
, Moral categories:
Meaning Example
Permissible It is permissible to do X if and only it is My decision to play with the dog is
not wrong to preform action X. permissible.
Obligatory An individual had an obligation or duty I have a moral obligation to not
to do X if and only if it’s impermissible hurt other people, to keep my
to not do X. promise, and not steal or cheat.
Supererogatory An action X is supererogatory if and Imagine I run into a burning
only if doing X involves doing more than building and rescue 10 people
is morally required even though this means I will
almost certainly die. This is
supererogatory.
Part 2: We should radically revise our mora categories
Conclusion 1 = We ought, morally, to do that which is in our power to prevent suffering and
death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care (normative claim).
Premise 4 = The traditional moral distinction between duty and supererogation implies that
we are not morally required to do that which is in our power to prevent suffering and death
from lack of food, shelter and medical care.
Premise 5 = We ought to reject distinctions that imply that we are not morally required to
do that which we are morally required to do.
Conclusion 2 = We ought to reject the traditional mora distinction between duty and
supererogation.
The traditional view on morality and Singer’s view
Obligations Supererogation
Traditional Don’t hurt others, don’t cheat or Sacrificing your life to save other people,
steal, keep promises and rescue the instead of spending money on luxury
drowning child goods, give it to people in need
Singer’s Instead of spending money on Sacrificing your life to save other people.
luxury goods, give it to people in
need, don’t hurt others, don’t cheat
or steal, keep promises and rescue
the drowning child
Objection 4: This is too revisionary
Objection = This is a radical revision to our ordinary understanding of morality. It means that
we have far more stringent moral obligations than people ordinarily think or accept.
>> Singer: That is exactly the point. We need to change society's view about morality so that
it aligns with the actual requirements of morality.
Moral requirements >> Society’s view = good
Society’s views >> Moral requirements = wrong
