but . . . ! it has bad consequences, ! it isn’t supported by the evidence, ! it can’t account for common core values. Where might common core values come from?
but . . . ! it has bad consequences, ! it isn’t supported by the evidence, ! it can’t account for common core values. Where might common core values come from? " God – Divine Command Theory
but . . . ! it has bad consequences, ! it isn’t supported by the evidence, ! it can’t account for common core values. Where might common core values come from? " God – Divine Command Theory " Nature – Natural Law Theory
but . . . ! it has bad consequences, ! it isn’t supported by the evidence, ! it can’t account for common core values. Where might common core values come from? " God – Divine Command Theory " Nature – Natural Law Theory " Rational reflection – various philosophical approaches to ethics
tell us what we should do, not what we actually do. ! Binding: they are mandatory, not optional. ! Enforceable: if they are meaningful there has to be a penalty for violating them.
tell us what we should do, not what we actually do. ! Binding: they are mandatory, not optional. ! Enforceable: if they are meaningful there has to be a penalty for violating them. Divine Command Theory attempts to account for these features of moral rules.
rules must be absolute. ! Such rules can only be grounded in an absolute authority – God. ! Understanding and following moral rules is only possible within the framework of religion.
rules must be absolute. ! Such rules can only be grounded in an absolute authority – God. ! Understanding and following moral rules is only possible within the framework of religion. Thus, “Murder is wrong,” means “God commands us not to murder.”
rules must be absolute. ! Such rules can only be grounded in an absolute authority – God. ! Understanding and following moral rules is only possible within the framework of religion. Thus, “Murder is wrong,” means “God commands us not to murder.” “Helping strangers in need is right,” means “God commands us to do so.”
There would be moral absolutes. 2. It wouldn’t be up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong. 3. We really should follow the rules. But . . . 4. Atheists couldn’t have morality.
There would be moral absolutes. 2. It wouldn’t be up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong. 3. We really should follow the rules. But . . . 4. Atheists couldn’t have morality. 5. We’d have to figure out what God really commands.
no absolute moral authority, then nothing would be just plain wrong. p2 But some things are just plain wrong. c So there has to be an absolute moral authority, and the only being capable of playing this role is God.
no absolute moral authority, then nothing would be just plain wrong. p2 But some things are just plain wrong. c So there has to be an absolute moral authority, and the only being capable of playing this role is God. Isn’t this what Divine Command Theory needs to prove – that morality requires an absolute authority? That begs the question!
because God says so? 2. Or does God say so because murder really is wrong? If 1., why couldn’t God have said “Thou shalt kill?” There is no reason behind God’s command, only authority.
because God says so? 2. Or does God say so because murder really is wrong? If 1., why couldn’t God have said “Thou shalt kill?” There is no reason behind God’s command, only authority. If 2., then God’s will doesn’t make murder wrong.
because God says so? 2. Or does God say so because murder really is wrong? If 1., why couldn’t God have said “Thou shalt kill?” There is no reason behind God’s command, only authority. If 2., then God’s will doesn’t make murder wrong. There is a reason behind the command, but it’s independent of God.
because God says so? 2. Or does God say so because murder really is wrong? If 1., why couldn’t God have said “Thou shalt kill?” There is no reason behind God’s command, only authority. If 2., then God’s will doesn’t make murder wrong. There is a reason behind the command, but it’s independent of God. This is a crippling dilemma for Divine Command Theory!
be based on God’s will. consequences " There are moral absolutes. " Morality is independent of human choices. " No God = no morality. argument O The argument for moral authority.
be based on God’s will. consequences " There are moral absolutes. " Morality is independent of human choices. " No God = no morality. argument O The argument for moral authority. evaluation Argument begs the question. Appeal to authority leads to dilemma.
for ethics is a search for a source of social order. ! If culture and authority fail to provide one where might we look? ! What if human nature could be a guide for ethics?
for ethics is a search for a source of social order. ! If culture and authority fail to provide one where might we look? ! What if human nature could be a guide for ethics? ! Isn’t what is natural is better than what is not natural?
definite nature. 2. Following our natures is better than not following our natures. 3. Only by following our natures we can attain true happiness and fulfillment.
definite nature. 2. Following our natures is better than not following our natures. 3. Only by following our natures we can attain true happiness and fulfillment. 4. If God created us, then God would be the indirect source of moral value.
definite nature. 2. Following our natures is better than not following our natures. 3. Only by following our natures we can attain true happiness and fulfillment. 4. If God created us, then God would be the indirect source of moral value. 5. If we are products of nature, ethical rules would have a biological basis.
! What kind of thing is it? material cause ! What is it made of? efficient cause ! How did it get here? final cause ! What is it for, what is its function?
Aquinas: a being made in God’s image " biology: homo sapiens material cause " Aristotle & Aquinas: body and soul " biology: bag of complex organic molecules
Aquinas: a being made in God’s image " biology: homo sapiens material cause " Aristotle & Aquinas: body and soul " biology: bag of complex organic molecules efficient cause " I was born. " We evolved or were specially created.
Aquinas: a being made in God’s image " biology: homo sapiens material cause " Aristotle & Aquinas: body and soul " biology: bag of complex organic molecules efficient cause " I was born. " We evolved or were specially created. final cause " Aristotle & Aquinas: Living well according to one’s nature. " biology: ?
1. They would be objective and not subject to human choices. 2. We should try to live according to out nature. 3. Doing this will lead to fulfillment as a human being.
1. They would be objective and not subject to human choices. 2. We should try to live according to out nature. 3. Doing this will lead to fulfillment as a human being. 4. There is an objective measure of the health of societies – if our society helps us to fulfill our nature it is good, otherwise not.
Human beings have a definite nature. p2 It is best when something follows its nature as much as it can. c So ethical behavior is behavior that focuses on us being all we can be, striving for excellence according to our nature.
Human beings have a definite nature. p2 It is best when something follows its nature as much as it can. c So ethical behavior is behavior that focuses on us being all we can be, striving for excellence according to our nature. Is there a fallacy here?
of money and decides to quit his job, leave his girlfriend and become a slacker. So he buys a cabin in the woods, stocks up on beer, weed, and frozen pizza, and spends the rest of his days watching bad TV and getting wasted.
of money and decides to quit his job, leave his girlfriend and become a slacker. So he buys a cabin in the woods, stocks up on beer, weed, and frozen pizza, and spends the rest of his days watching bad TV and getting wasted. We may disapprove of Alf’s choices, but is it morally wrong for him to live like this?
laws of nature. 2. That which is statistically ordinary. 3. That which is not artificial. 4. That which follows something’s natural function. “I know that UFO is from another dimension because it did something unnatural in the sky.”
laws of nature. 2. That which is statistically ordinary. 3. That which is not artificial. 4. That which follows something’s natural function. “I know that UFO is from another dimension because it did something unnatural in the sky.” “She has an unnatural talent for playing the guitar.”
laws of nature. 2. That which is statistically ordinary. 3. That which is not artificial. 4. That which follows something’s natural function. “I know that UFO is from another dimension because it did something unnatural in the sky.” “She has an unnatural talent for playing the guitar.” “Silicone buttock enhancements are unnatural.”
laws of nature. 2. That which is statistically ordinary. 3. That which is not artificial. 4. That which follows something’s natural function. “I know that UFO is from another dimension because it did something unnatural in the sky.” “She has an unnatural talent for playing the guitar.” “Silicone buttock enhancements are unnatural.” “Having sex without intending to reproduce is unnatural.”
1. What violates the laws of nature is wrong. false These laws are descriptive so we can’t violate them. 2. What is statistically uncommon is wrong. false Some uncommon things are good.
1. What violates the laws of nature is wrong. false These laws are descriptive so we can’t violate them. 2. What is statistically uncommon is wrong. false Some uncommon things are good. 3. What is artificial is wrong.
1. What violates the laws of nature is wrong. false These laws are descriptive so we can’t violate them. 2. What is statistically uncommon is wrong. false Some uncommon things are good. 3. What is artificial is wrong. false Many artificial things are useful.
1. What violates the laws of nature is wrong. false These laws are descriptive so we can’t violate them. 2. What is statistically uncommon is wrong. false Some uncommon things are good. 3. What is artificial is wrong. false Many artificial things are useful. 4. What goes against natural functions is wrong.
1. What violates the laws of nature is wrong. false These laws are descriptive so we can’t violate them. 2. What is statistically uncommon is wrong. false Some uncommon things are good. 3. What is artificial is wrong. false Many artificial things are useful. 4. What goes against natural functions is wrong. false What are natural functions anyway? Isn’t it up to us to decide?
its value is a fallacy! Likewise, because something is “unnatural” does not therefore make it bad. Evaluations are not built in to nature, they are up to us to work out – we’ll see how soon . . .
in human nature. consequences " There are moral absolutes. " We can define good and bad societies. argument O The excellence argument. evaluation It commits the naturalistic fallacy. It fails to give free choice its due.