Schneewind - Modern Moral Philosophy

Front 1

Intro

Back 1

Schneewind is concerned with discussing how modern philosophy has challenged core ideas within virtue ethics (VE) and divine command theory. He stated that VE has become incompatible with the modern view that there not "just one definite way of living which is best for everyone", and divine command theory has suffered from the belief that there is not a God who decides what is good and creates absolute moral commands.

Front 2

Intro Continued

Back 2

If God does not have the authority to decide what is good, then a new source of authority is needed. Schneewind describes how this came from a new belief in human autonomy and self-governance. Moral authority therefore came from humans themselves rather than an external authority.

Front 3

Toward Autonomy - Montaigne

Back 3

This movement began with Montaigne, who felt the demands of divine command theory and VE were too difficult to live by. He therefore suggested everyone to live according to "a way of life which our own nature makes necessary for us".

Front 4

Toward Autonomy - Schneewind

Back 4

Schneewind - argues that society could not live according to the idea that the law formed the only rules individuals had to live by. There needed to be a new source of morality applicable to both Catholics and Protestants, and provided practical moral guidance to a population that felt 'self-reliant' and through higher literacy, more able to think about issues for themselves.

Front 5

Toward Autonomy - Aquinas

Back 5

Aquinas' natural law theory helped fill this need, and so its tradition continued to thrive. It appealed to supporters of human autonomy, and across societal divides because it claimed that ethics can be drawn from human reason, independent of revelation.

Front 6

Toward Autonomy - Grotius

Back 6

"The moral thought of the seventeenth century started from classical natural law theory, but altered it drastically."

Classical natural law saw human purpose as decided by God and morality helping humans to understand that purpose, but Hugo Grotius saw humans as deciding their own purpose, and morality helping humans pursue this.

Grotius also believed in an early notion of the idea of rights, which are intrinsic to humans, and should be respected by the ruling authorities, although he held that they could be traded with authorities in exchange for the safety and order rulers bring about.

Front 7

Toward Autonomy - Hobbes

Back 7

Hobbes agreed that we should submit to a ruler because it is the only way to create a lawful and ordered society, but added that we want order because it is a better environment to ruthlessly pursue our own selfish goals.

Front 8

Toward Autonomy - Hobbes & Grotius

Back 8

Hobbes and Grotius both point out the idea of a social contract between society and its rulers (rather than with God).

Front 9

Toward Autonomy - Locke, Hobbes & Grotius

Back 9

Locke, Hobbes and Grotius agreed that man is unable to live without rulers enforcing order. Man could only behave morally with the threat of punishment from authorities.

Front 10

Toward Autonomy - Criticised

Back 10

However, this view was criticised in the late seventeenth century. Morality came to be seen as something not imposed on human nature, but an expression of it. Rulers did not need to impose morality because morality came from within individuals.

Front 11

Toward Autonomy - Pierre Bayle & third Earl of Shaftesbury

Back 11

Bayle concluded: if morality came from human nature instead of God, atheists could form a "perfectly decent society" - a shocking statement because it meant that morality did not come from God. The third Earl of Shaftesbury stated that humans could decide themselves if their motive in an ethical situation was right or wrong.

Front 12

Toward Autonomy - Debate

Back 12

There was then a debate about what motivated us to behave morally - was it self-interest or benevolence? Do we know what is right because of feelings/intuition or because of reason? Both possibilities were important to autonomy because it meant humans could "be aware of the requirements of morality" - it did not need to be taught by external authorities, such as the Church or government.

Front 13

Toward Autonomy - Self-interest

Back 13

Those who felt humans were only motivated by self-interest argued that it would still "naturally lead us to virtuous behaviour" because it is naturally constituted this way. Others felt we would naturally pursue virtue out of self-interest because of the enjoyment to be had from virtue, or because virtue helps us "get assistance in pursuing our own projects". However, all agreed that virtue requires us "to work for the good of others". They also promoted a teleological approach that saw only the outcome of actions as morally significant, and good as "whatever gives happiness or pleasure."

Front 14

Toward Autonomy

Back 14

This teleological approach and view that what is good is more important than what is right was challenged by Hume and Kant.

Front 15

Toward Autonomy - Hume

Back 15

Hume - a sense of right and wrong (morality) is rooted in our feelings, rather than reason - our feelings will make us "do what is generally beneficial and disapprove of those [actions] which do harm." Though we are often motivated by self-interest, we can also be motivated by a benevolent care for others, which he saw as virtue.

Front 16

Toward Autonomy - Hume continued

Back 16

Hume - sometimes justice does not always result in goodness (understood as happiness or pleasure), as demonstrated by a poor virtuous person returning money to an unvirtuous millionaire. However, he argued that one should always do what is right, even if it results in hardship rather than goodness. He also argued that humans will recognise that rules relating to justice are beneficial - this sense will grow within us so that we naturally have the feeling of obedience to them.

Front 17

Toward Autonomy - Kant

Back 17

Kant similarly saw morality as arising from human nature, rather than from something external to ourselves, which he saw as an important part of human freedom. However, this morality imposes absolute duties upon us: "our moral obligations must arise from a law which we ourselves legislate."

Core part of Kant's moral theory - the categorical imperative which is to "always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law." It is therefore a deontological theory that states that what is right is more important than what is good.

Front 18

Toward Autonomy - Kant continued

Back 18

Kant's view, shared by Reid and Bentham, is that "ordinary people can get adequate guidance for action by consciously applying moral principles" - e.g. the categorical imperative and the principle of utility. This was a radical view, as previous thinkers did not believe that everyone would be able to use moral principles in this way. This was known as 'common-sense' morality and Reid upheld the belief that everyone can intuitively know and understand moral truths and apply them in ethical situations, which is crucial for our ability to self-govern.

Front 19

Autonomy and Theory: Pro and Con

Back 19

This movement then became more fragmented and the focus of academic study rather than of concern for all members of society. Schneewind discusses three ways the movement developed...

Front 20

1. The continuation of efforts of efforts to indicate and explain moral autonomy

Back 20

Schneewind - Bentham's utilitarianism theory seemed to be at odds with common-sense convictions and too difficult for some people to use in decision making, despite Bentham's claim otherwise.

John Stuart Mill attempted to rebut these criticisms by claiming that commom-sense morality can be used most of the time, but the principle of utility will be needed in special circumstances and when it is used, its guidance will not be unacceptable to our normal sense of morality. Mill also added the idea that we can become attached to our principles so that our inner motivation aligns to them and we have autonomy from external rules.

Front 21

Intuitionists

Back 21

Intuitionists criticised utilitarianism on the basis of the difference between what is good and what is right. Utilitarianism assumes that "whatever people want is good" - e.g. if people want it, then it must be good. However, intuitionists claimed that what is good is not necessarily right since there are self-evident principles, such as justice, which is right, but which people do not always want.

Front 22

Henry Sidgwick

Back 22

A more compatibilist view -> Henry Sidgwick argued that intuition was needed to apply utilitarianism, and utilitarianism was needed to give intuitionism a moral guide; "utilitarianism gives the best theoretical account of common-sense convictions."

Front 23

Realm of real values

Back 23

Another theory of intuitionism was out forward by Brentano, Scheler and Hartmann, who stated that through feeling "we have access to a realm of real values", which are objectively true. This realm of values means that we intuitively desire more than the "satisfaction of our desires."

Front 24

G.E. Moore

Back 24

Moore argued in 'Principia Ethica' that "knowledge of values could not be derived from knowledge of facts". This refers to Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy', in which he argued that 'good' could not be defined in reference to the world or human nature. For example, utilitarianism defines good in terms of happiness, which Moore claims is a non-moral principle and is not intrinsically good.

Front 25

Problem

Back 25

The problem with intuitionism in all these forms is that there is no procedure for making decisions when people's intuitions disagree.

Front 26

2. Efforts to assert the primacy of the community over the individual

Back 26

Hegel criticised the focus on the individual in theories such as Kant's and Mill's. Hegel argued that "the moral personality... is and must be formed by the community in which the person lives". For this reason, individuals cannot have a viewpoint which is not firstly constructed by their community. The importance of individual judgement is therefore low in overall historical development.

Front 27

Such thinkers

Back 27

However, such thinkers did not offer a moral theory based on their views of the community, although it could be described as a philosophical position.

Front 28

John Dewey

Back 28

This view of individuals was challenged by John Dewey, who accepted that the community was very influential over our moral outlook, but thought individuals were still able "through inquiry [to] devise new solutions to social problems".

Front 29

3. Rise of nihilism and relativism and the increased significance of questions about the epistemology of morals

Back 29

Nietzsche attacked the idea that morality can be deduced from intuition and awareness, arguing that those who attempt to make moral theories that they claim are binding on everyone are motivated only by gaining power over others. He stated morality can only be guided by deciding "what sort of person one proposes to be, and strive to be so".

Front 30

Logical positivists

Back 30

Another challenge -> logical positivists -> because moral claims cannot be empirically verified in the same way as science, they are meaningless and express nothing more than feelings rather than any statement of fact.

Front 31

Schneewind

Back 31

While discussions about the nature of moral language are often considered to say nothing about the substance of moral theories, the debate was based on the assumption "that what matters about morality is that individuals should be able to make their own decisions and live accordingly".

Front 32

Sartre

Back 32

Argued that "morality rests on nothing but the totally untrammelled free decision of each individual." The basis for moral decision making was the individual, who had to make their own personal decision.

Front 33

Other philosophers

Back 33

Other philosophers, concerned with meta-ethics, turned to develop arguments about how to make morality have a non-scientific rational basis and develop rational methods for resolving moral disagreements. Utilitarian views dominated until the 1960s.

Front 34

New Directions

Back 34

Schneewind - discussed new trends in philosophical thinking. He describes how Rawls revived Kantian thinking that common-sense morality tells us that the right is more important than the good, at least in terms of ensuring justice. He critiques the idea that morality is about the individual, on the basis that it is important for justice that the relationship between individuals is also considered.

Front 35

Rawls

Back 35

Rawls combines Hegel's ideas about community and the Kantian idea on human autonomy to argue that together, as individuals, we should decide what basic rules should govern society and use these to create a social contract and morality, which ensures justice.

Front 36

Recent developments in modern philosophy

Back 36

Schneewind outlines three other recent developments in moral philosophy:

1. A focus on actual social and political problems - e.g. abortion, just war, medical ethics.

2. A focus on the Aristotelian idea of morality as about virtue, rather than abstract principles.

3. A focus on the need to organise the behaviour of large groups of people for the benefit of all, rather than the few or for the short term.

Front 37

Implications

Back 37

A clear implication is the diversity of thought and intense debate that it has brought about.

The opportunity for debate was not as wide-ranging as it was to become with the rise of human autonomy.

Philosophers now had to establish the authority of human autonomy, understand what this meant, and decide how to go about deciding what is right or good.

Front 38

Implication for Christians

Back 38

There has been a greater challenge in society regarding the idea of divine authority and questioning of its validity.

Bayle, like many non-Christians today - it is no longer seen as necessary to be Christian in order to be moral.

Ideas rooted in relativism and the epistemology of moral worsened this attack by questioning the importance of moral theories in general.

Front 39

Suggested implications from the changes brought about by modern moral philosophy

Back 39

MMP: Ethical principle through reason, intuition and feeling, independent of revelation and without reference to Christianity

Implications: Principles could be ethical without necessarily being Christian - separated religion from morality.

New ways to discover what is ethical - led to a wide variety of different types of ethical theories, such as intuitionism, emotivism and reason-based ethics.

Front 40

Continued

Back 40

MMP: Rejected the ideas of God's laws; believed that we always act for the benefit of everyone, even if acting out of self-interest

Implications: Similar challenges to Christianity as above.

Continued but further defended the idea that it is acceptable for humans to act out of self-interest. Implications for ethical problems which require a collective response.

Front 41

Continued~

Back 41

MMP: Reid, Bentham and Kant believed "ordinary people can get adequate guidance for action by consciously applying abstract moral principles".

Implications: Supports the freedom of individuals as they do not require others to assist them. Can be moral independently. Less hierarchy between philosopher and laymen.

May not lead to the implications intended if moral theories are too 'abstract' to be applied to daily life.

Front 42

Continued~

Back 42

MMP: Political authorities reward those who are obedient to the law, but punish those are not.

Implications: View of human nature as unable to be moral without the fear of political authorities.

God not needed to enforce morality or order in society.

Humans construct governments to bring about order because they see it as necessary for society - it has not been imposed.

Front 43

Continued~

Back 43

MMP: Saw humans as deciding their own purpose, and morality helping humans pursue this.

Implications: Morality is conceived as no longer serving an external authority, but only for self-interest and individual goals.

Greater freedom for humans to decide for themselves in what way morality is important.

Humans can decide their own purpose and pursue this with self-interest.

Front 44

Continued~

Back 44

In the former, man is understood to be an unruly character that needs controlling. In the latter, morality is "an outgrowth of human feelings." Implications of the latter - man is free to make his own moral judgements.