Article summaries
Chapter 2: Moral Philosophy and Moral Reasoning
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
1. What is Moral Philosophy?
Moral philosophy is the reflection on morality using philosophical reasoning.
While morality exists naturally in everyday life (e.g., teaching children to share
or not to lie), moral philosophy explores deeper questions about the nature,
purpose, and foundation of moral values.
2. Why Study Moral Philosophy?
o Helps individuals develop a moral perspective by clarifying what
matters morally, how we relate to others, and how to use our talents
ethically.
o Encourages dialogue, critical reasoning, and understanding of history,
culture, and traditions.
o Provides tools for engaging with diverse perspectives and real-world
moral dilemmas.
Nature of Moral Philosophy
• Morality vs. Etiquette:
Morality focuses on actions that help or harm others in significant ways,
whereas etiquette involves rules of good manners. The boundary can be
fuzzy since persistent disregard for etiquette may signal disrespect and cross
into moral territory. For example, consistently interrupting someone during a
conversation may seem like bad manners, but it can also demonstrate a lack
of respect for their thoughts and feelings, crossing into moral territory by
showing contempt or disregard for others.
• Key Moral Questions:
o "What do we owe to each other?" (T.M. Scanlon).
o Supererogation: Actions above and beyond duty. For example,
helping a stranger move into a new apartment or donating a significant
portion of your income to charity are considered supererogatory acts
because they go beyond what morality strictly requires.
o Duties to Oneself: Immanuel Kant argued morality also includes self-
regarding duties, like self-respect.
Three Core Areas of Ethics
1. Meta-Ethics:
o Focuses on higher-order questions about the source, nature, and
authority of morality:
, § Where do moral rules come from?
§ Are moral truths objective or subjective?
o Example: A child asking, "Who says I have to?" raises meta-ethical
concerns about the foundation of moral authority.
2. Normative Ethics:
o Examines standards of right and wrong and moral principles we
should live by.
o Central questions include:
§ What moral rules are correct?
§ How do we distinguish between right and wrong?
o Normative ethics presupposes a benchmark or ideal standard, such
as Kantian respect for rational agents or utilitarian emphasis on
happiness.
3. Applied Ethics:
o Analyzes specific moral issues (e.g., abortion, war, affirmative action)
by applying normative principles.
o Example: Should governments restrict immigration to protect the
welfare state? Or consider climate adaptation: Who should bear the
financial burden of protecting vulnerable regions from environmental
damage? Applied ethics begins with a practical problem and seeks
moral solutions.
Moral Reasoning and Argumentation
• Arguments:
o A way of supporting conclusions using premises (reasoned claims).
o An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the
premises.
o An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.
• Logical Traps:
o Equivocation: Using the same word with different meanings in
premises.
o Circular Reasoning: Assuming what the argument is supposed to
prove (e.g., the Bible is true because God said so). This is problematic
because it offers no independent support for the conclusion, relying
instead on the conclusion itself as evidence. Such reasoning fails to
advance understanding or persuade skeptics, as it does not address
the foundational basis of the claim.
• Complex Arguments:
Moral arguments (e.g., for immigration control) require careful evaluation of
premises and their implications.
Techniques in Moral Reasoning
1. Thought Experiments:
o Hypothetical scenarios that test moral intuitions and theories.
, o Examples:
§ The Trolley Problem (Ph. Foot): Should you pull a lever to save
five people at the cost of one? This problem is significant
because it highlights the conflict between consequentialist ethics
(focused on outcomes) and deontological ethics (focused on
rules and duties). It challenges individuals to consider the moral
weight of their actions and the ethical principles they prioritize.
§ Drowning Child Analogy (P. Singer): Saving a drowning child
mirrors our moral duty to alleviate poverty.
o Purpose: Thought experiments reveal the consistency (or
inconsistency) of moral theories with our intuitions.
2. Analogies:
o Comparing two fields to draw moral conclusions (e.g., drowning child =
poverty).
o Caution: A bad analogy can mislead reasoning (e.g., comparing family
to a state).
3. Inductive Reasoning:
o Moves from specific observations to general principles.
o Limitation: Inductive reasoning risks hasty generalizations (e.g.,
assuming "all swans are white").
4. Inference to the Best Explanation:
o Choosing the moral theory that best explains observed moral practices
and dilemmas.
Conclusion: The Purpose of Moral Philosophy
• Moral philosophy does not always provide direct solutions to moral problems
but sharpen reasoning and inspire individuals to reflect deeply on their moral
outlook.
• Through the works of philosophers like Plato, Kant, Mill, and modern thinkers,
moral philosophy equips us with tools to:
o Evaluate arguments.
o Clarify moral principles.
o Engage in critical moral debates about contemporary issues like
climate change, poverty, and human rights.
, Chapter 3: Free will, Moral responsibility and
global economy
Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Overview
This chapter examines the intricate relationship between free will and moral
responsibility, integrating the determinist challenge, philosophical theories, and key
examples to illustrate how free will connects to moral appraisal. Specifically, it delves
into determinist arguments, compatibilist solutions, and Frankfurt’s thought
experiments, addressing their implications for contemporary ethics.
The Determinist Challenge
1. The Basic Argument:
Determinism posits that human behavior is determined by prior causes and
conditions—including biological predispositions, environmental influences,
and societal norms—thereby eliminating the possibility of free will. Without
free will, the basis for moral responsibility is undermined. The argument
proceeds as follows:
o Premise 1: Moral appraisal (praise/blame) requires the ability to hold
individuals responsible for their actions.
o Premise 2: Responsibility presupposes free will.
o Premise 3: Determinism negates free will.
o Conclusion: Therefore, individuals cannot be morally responsible.
2. Everyday Experience and Intuition:
Intuitively, humans act as though they possess agency—making deliberate
choices such as deciding to perform altruistic acts or engage in misconduct.
Yet determinism raises challenges when viewed against habitual behaviors or
reflexive actions, which often occur without conscious decision-making. For
example, addictions or deeply ingrained habits may undermine the perception
of free will, blurring the line between autonomy and determinism.
Forms of Determinism
1. Sociological Determinism:
o Human behavior is shaped by societal forces such as upbringing,
culture, and social norms, which limit individual autonomy.
o Example: Moral values adopted by individuals are often reflections of
their cultural environments. Someone raised in a deeply conservative
society will likely adopt different moral beliefs than someone raised in a
liberal context.
o Limits of Sociological Determinism: While social structures influence
behavior, individuals can and often do deviate from cultural norms—
demonstrating that determinism does not entirely negate free will.
Chapter 2: Moral Philosophy and Moral Reasoning
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
1. What is Moral Philosophy?
Moral philosophy is the reflection on morality using philosophical reasoning.
While morality exists naturally in everyday life (e.g., teaching children to share
or not to lie), moral philosophy explores deeper questions about the nature,
purpose, and foundation of moral values.
2. Why Study Moral Philosophy?
o Helps individuals develop a moral perspective by clarifying what
matters morally, how we relate to others, and how to use our talents
ethically.
o Encourages dialogue, critical reasoning, and understanding of history,
culture, and traditions.
o Provides tools for engaging with diverse perspectives and real-world
moral dilemmas.
Nature of Moral Philosophy
• Morality vs. Etiquette:
Morality focuses on actions that help or harm others in significant ways,
whereas etiquette involves rules of good manners. The boundary can be
fuzzy since persistent disregard for etiquette may signal disrespect and cross
into moral territory. For example, consistently interrupting someone during a
conversation may seem like bad manners, but it can also demonstrate a lack
of respect for their thoughts and feelings, crossing into moral territory by
showing contempt or disregard for others.
• Key Moral Questions:
o "What do we owe to each other?" (T.M. Scanlon).
o Supererogation: Actions above and beyond duty. For example,
helping a stranger move into a new apartment or donating a significant
portion of your income to charity are considered supererogatory acts
because they go beyond what morality strictly requires.
o Duties to Oneself: Immanuel Kant argued morality also includes self-
regarding duties, like self-respect.
Three Core Areas of Ethics
1. Meta-Ethics:
o Focuses on higher-order questions about the source, nature, and
authority of morality:
, § Where do moral rules come from?
§ Are moral truths objective or subjective?
o Example: A child asking, "Who says I have to?" raises meta-ethical
concerns about the foundation of moral authority.
2. Normative Ethics:
o Examines standards of right and wrong and moral principles we
should live by.
o Central questions include:
§ What moral rules are correct?
§ How do we distinguish between right and wrong?
o Normative ethics presupposes a benchmark or ideal standard, such
as Kantian respect for rational agents or utilitarian emphasis on
happiness.
3. Applied Ethics:
o Analyzes specific moral issues (e.g., abortion, war, affirmative action)
by applying normative principles.
o Example: Should governments restrict immigration to protect the
welfare state? Or consider climate adaptation: Who should bear the
financial burden of protecting vulnerable regions from environmental
damage? Applied ethics begins with a practical problem and seeks
moral solutions.
Moral Reasoning and Argumentation
• Arguments:
o A way of supporting conclusions using premises (reasoned claims).
o An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the
premises.
o An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.
• Logical Traps:
o Equivocation: Using the same word with different meanings in
premises.
o Circular Reasoning: Assuming what the argument is supposed to
prove (e.g., the Bible is true because God said so). This is problematic
because it offers no independent support for the conclusion, relying
instead on the conclusion itself as evidence. Such reasoning fails to
advance understanding or persuade skeptics, as it does not address
the foundational basis of the claim.
• Complex Arguments:
Moral arguments (e.g., for immigration control) require careful evaluation of
premises and their implications.
Techniques in Moral Reasoning
1. Thought Experiments:
o Hypothetical scenarios that test moral intuitions and theories.
, o Examples:
§ The Trolley Problem (Ph. Foot): Should you pull a lever to save
five people at the cost of one? This problem is significant
because it highlights the conflict between consequentialist ethics
(focused on outcomes) and deontological ethics (focused on
rules and duties). It challenges individuals to consider the moral
weight of their actions and the ethical principles they prioritize.
§ Drowning Child Analogy (P. Singer): Saving a drowning child
mirrors our moral duty to alleviate poverty.
o Purpose: Thought experiments reveal the consistency (or
inconsistency) of moral theories with our intuitions.
2. Analogies:
o Comparing two fields to draw moral conclusions (e.g., drowning child =
poverty).
o Caution: A bad analogy can mislead reasoning (e.g., comparing family
to a state).
3. Inductive Reasoning:
o Moves from specific observations to general principles.
o Limitation: Inductive reasoning risks hasty generalizations (e.g.,
assuming "all swans are white").
4. Inference to the Best Explanation:
o Choosing the moral theory that best explains observed moral practices
and dilemmas.
Conclusion: The Purpose of Moral Philosophy
• Moral philosophy does not always provide direct solutions to moral problems
but sharpen reasoning and inspire individuals to reflect deeply on their moral
outlook.
• Through the works of philosophers like Plato, Kant, Mill, and modern thinkers,
moral philosophy equips us with tools to:
o Evaluate arguments.
o Clarify moral principles.
o Engage in critical moral debates about contemporary issues like
climate change, poverty, and human rights.
, Chapter 3: Free will, Moral responsibility and
global economy
Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Overview
This chapter examines the intricate relationship between free will and moral
responsibility, integrating the determinist challenge, philosophical theories, and key
examples to illustrate how free will connects to moral appraisal. Specifically, it delves
into determinist arguments, compatibilist solutions, and Frankfurt’s thought
experiments, addressing their implications for contemporary ethics.
The Determinist Challenge
1. The Basic Argument:
Determinism posits that human behavior is determined by prior causes and
conditions—including biological predispositions, environmental influences,
and societal norms—thereby eliminating the possibility of free will. Without
free will, the basis for moral responsibility is undermined. The argument
proceeds as follows:
o Premise 1: Moral appraisal (praise/blame) requires the ability to hold
individuals responsible for their actions.
o Premise 2: Responsibility presupposes free will.
o Premise 3: Determinism negates free will.
o Conclusion: Therefore, individuals cannot be morally responsible.
2. Everyday Experience and Intuition:
Intuitively, humans act as though they possess agency—making deliberate
choices such as deciding to perform altruistic acts or engage in misconduct.
Yet determinism raises challenges when viewed against habitual behaviors or
reflexive actions, which often occur without conscious decision-making. For
example, addictions or deeply ingrained habits may undermine the perception
of free will, blurring the line between autonomy and determinism.
Forms of Determinism
1. Sociological Determinism:
o Human behavior is shaped by societal forces such as upbringing,
culture, and social norms, which limit individual autonomy.
o Example: Moral values adopted by individuals are often reflections of
their cultural environments. Someone raised in a deeply conservative
society will likely adopt different moral beliefs than someone raised in a
liberal context.
o Limits of Sociological Determinism: While social structures influence
behavior, individuals can and often do deviate from cultural norms—
demonstrating that determinism does not entirely negate free will.
